IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

207 CRA-S-3938-2025(O&M)

Decided on: 18.02.2026 Pardeep Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, whereby anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant was rejected by the trial Court, in case FIR No.183 dated 26.11.2025, under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, registered at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran.

2. As per the office report, notice sent to respondent No. 2 has been received back duly served; however, there is no representation on his behalf.

3. On 18.12.2025, following order was passed:

“1. On a call given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, the Members of the Bar are abstaining from work w.e.f. 15.12.2025. Position is same even today.

2. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, whereby anticipatory bail application filed by him was rejected by the trial Court, in case, FIR No.183 dated 26.11.2025, under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran.

3. It has been pleaded in the present appeal that appellant is even ready to give his voice sample to prove that he is not the actual person, who has used the filthy language to defame the complainant, namely, Shekharpreet Singh. Otherwise also, question which seems to be arising during the proceedings of the present case is that “whether the appellant/accused had any prior knowledge of the caste and community of the complainant/victim, that he belongs to the SC/ST category”.

4. Another question which seems to be arguable in the present petition is “whether using the derogatory words on telephonic talk, would be enough or not, to construe that appellant had committed offence under the SC/ST Act, without using of the words in the public view”.

5. Complainant, namely, Shekharpreet Singh, son of Sukhwinder Singh, resident of Malah, P.S. Verowal, District Tarn Taran, is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the present appeal Let amended memo of parties be filed by counsel for the appellant in the Registry, within a period of four days from today, without moving any separate application.

6. Notice of motion for 18.02.2026.

7. Meanwhile, the appellant is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the appellant shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The appellant shall also abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

8. Besides, it is directed that appellant would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, appellant would seek prior permission of the Court. ”

4. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in compliance to the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by this Court, appellant has joined the investigation and has extended full cooperation. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel expressed his inability to confirm the said fact in the absence of the Investigating Officer.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Noticing the contention already recorded vide order dated 18.12.2025, as well as the statement made at bar by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the appellant has already joined the investigation, the ad-inter