IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 CRA-S-1870-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Iqbal Singh Gill ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Nikhil Vashisht, Advocate for respondent No. 2/complainant.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’) by the appellant challenging the order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, whereby an application filed by him for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 28 dated 19.03.2025, registered under Section 103(1), 109, 118(1), 191(3), 190, 324(4), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Jalandhar Cantt., District Jalandhar, had been dismissed. 2. As per the allegations, on the intervening night of 17/18.03.2025, a murderous assault was opened upon Harkaranjit Singh, son of the complainant Kulvir Singh, by the present appellant along with the co-accused, when he had gone to attend a birthday party of his friend. The victim had been admitted to the hospital but had succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the statement recorded by his father/complainant Kulvir Singh, the aforementioned FIR has been registered and investigation proceedings have been initiated. Since the victim belonged to SC community, offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was also added. Accused Jatinder Singh @ Taji was arrested during the course of investigation. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement as well as that of the appellant in commission of subject offences. The appellant on being nominated as accused and apprehending his arrest had filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which had been dismissed by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, vide impugned order dated 20.05.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the Court concerned ignored the fact that there was inordinate and unexplained delay of two days in lodging of the FIR. In fact, some unknown persons had committed the subject offences. No specific role had been attributed to him. He was not even present at the place of occurrence. He has been implicated in this case only due to being brother-in-law of co-accused Simar, who has already been disowned by the family of the appellant since long. On the fateful day, he was present in his house and this fact can be verified from the CCTV footage. He was not named in the FIR or even in the supplementary statement of the complainant. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. However, while passing the impugned order, the Court concerned did not take into consideration all these facts and wrongly dismissed his bail application by observing that bar under Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act was attracted. With these broad submissions, it is argued that the present appeal deserves to be accepted and the appellant deserves to be given benefit of pre-arrest bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, has argued that there are serious allegations against the appellant, who by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, had opened a brutal assault upon the son of the complainant and had caused his homicidal death. The exact name of the appellant might not have been mentioned in the FIR but he was referred to a the brother-in-law of co-accused Simar. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are prima facie attracted in