IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :23.01.2026 Jasmer Singh @ Jassi and another ......Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr.G.S.Sirphikhi, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Section under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Sections 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, hereinafter being referred as ‘SC & ST Act’, the FIR No.198 dated 14.07.2025, has been lodged in Police Station Dera Bassi, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Since the appellants are apprehending arrest in the present case, they moved an application for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the learned Special Judge designated under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

2. Aggrieved of the order dated 11.11.2025, hereinafter being referred as ‘impugned order’, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, needs indulgence of appellate jurisdiction of this Court.

3. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Monika’ wife of ‘Harmeet’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was stated by the complainant that she was a household lady and that ‘Raju’ son of ‘Jassi’ had tried to take over the possession of a piece of land belonging to them. According to complainant, ‘Raju’, had tried to fix barbed wire surrounding the above mentioned land and that she had raised objection against the above mentioned endeavour of ‘Raju’, and informed her husband. The complainant further alleged that on her call her aunt ‘Surinder Kaur’, cousin of her husband ‘Kuldeep Singh’ and husband ‘Harmeet Singh’ arrived on the spot and removed the barbed wire fixed by ‘Raju’. The complainant further alleged that thereafter ‘Raju’ along with his son, his father ‘Jassi’, ‘Suraj’ and 15-17 others unknown persons arrived on the spot and thrashed them. It was also stated by the complainant that when she screamed for help the assailants fled from the spot. According to complainant, since she and her husband were suffering from severe pain, they were admitted in civil hospital, but later on discharged.

4. The learned State Counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Dera Bassi. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Special Judge without application of judicial mind has declined the benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellants, merely on the ground that the provisions of SC & ST Act are attracted in the present case. As per appellants, the learned Special Judge has not appreciated that the allegations contained in the FIR does not attract the provisions of SC & ST Act, and that the other offences allegedly committed by the appellants are bailable in nature, and therefore, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. It has been pleaded by the appellants that impugned order is not sustainable and need interference & indulgence of appellate jurisdiction of this Court.

7. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the appellants are innocent, who have been falsely implicated in the present case merely due to greed of grabbing land belonging to family of the appellants. As per learned counsel for the appellants the learned Special Judge while dealing with application for anticipatory bail has failed to appreciate that the contents of the FIR nowhere projects the commission of any offence punishable under any provisions of SC & ST Act.

8. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued