104+206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRA-S-141-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 12.02.2026 Baldev Singh ....Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG Punjab.

Mr. A.S.Khinda, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

CRM-5938-2026 Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

CRA-S-141-2026

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Court, Kapurthala, whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant in FIR No. 106 dated 27.12.2025, registered under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala, has been dismissed.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainants Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh moved an application before the SHO, Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala, against the present appellant Baldev Singh. It has been alleged that the complainants belong to the Balmiki caste, whereas the appellant Baldev Singh belongs to the Jat community. The parties are co-villagers and their land is adjoining to the land of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant used to level false allegations against the complainants and their children and used to address them by saying, “kutio churio tuhanu chhadna nhi na hi tuhanu ethe rehn dena hai.”

3. It is further alleged that on 16.11.2025, when the complainant was not feeling well and was present in his house for rest and his friend Balwinder Singh was also present with him, at that time Baldev Singh was standing on his land and called them in bad names and also used abusive words with reference to their caste. The time of occurrence was around 11:00 a.m. The alleged reason behind the occurrence is stated to be a dispute between the complainant and his brother Hardev Singh with another brother regarding installation of CCTV camera at the house of Hardev Singh. It is also alleged that on the day of Diwali, when their children were cracking firecrackers and playing with a toy pistol, the appellant Baldev Singh clicked their photographs and sent the same to higher police officials. Thereafter, an enquiry into the matter was conducted, during the course of which the present FIR was registered against the appellant and investigation was initiated by the DSP, Bholath.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Court, Kapurthala, dismissing the anticipatory bail application, is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. It is argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of previous disputes between the parties, as the complainants belong to the Scheduled Caste community and the appellant belongs to the Jatt Sikh community and their lands are adjoining. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR are concocted and vague, inasmuch as no specific objectionable or caste-based words have been reproduced in the FIR, nor has it been shown that any such words were uttered in public view. Learned counsel submits that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 16.11.2025 at about 11:00 a.m., when the complainant was resting at his house and his friend Balwinder Singh had come to meet him, and it is alleged that the appellant, while standing in his land, used abusive language, however, the FIR was lodged only on 27.12.2025, i.e. after an unexplained delay of about one month and eleven days, which itself creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. It is further contended that on the eve of Diwali, the children of the complainants were bursting crackers with toy guns and the appellant had merely clicked photographs and forwarded the same to higher police o