IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 24.03.2026 SUMAN LATA ... Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. B.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in case arising out of FIR No.231 dated 20.08.2025 registered under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar whereby the application for grant of pre-arrest bail as filed by the appellant had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant-Deepak Kumar alleging therein that on

28.01.2023, he was watching videos in his mobile phone through YouTube App. and watched a video at ND Haryana channel. He started going through the comments made on that video and found that the petitioner, who is a Haryana Police employee had given comments while using objectionable language against the members of Scheduled Caste community casting slurs on the community. She had publicly and openly written the following words :-

“Unka to varsha biharan hai unka ke karle jinka biharan bhi nahin rahti chudi bhi nahin rahti chamari bhi nahin rahti aur ghr p aayi hoi b bhaj h”

By alleging that by using the aforementioned words, the petitioner had hurt the sentiments of members of SC community to which the complainant belonged and had insulted them, he, therefore, prayed for taking action against the petitioner.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide order dated 01.10.2025. Feeling aggrieved from the above order, the instant appeal has been filed.

4. 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 learned Trial Court ignored the fact that the appellant herself had never made any comment on YouTube video. In fact, her daughter studying in 9^th standard had been using her phone and it was she who made the alleged comments on the video. The YouTube video on which the comment had been posted belongs to the father of the appellant. The appellant has never made any caste related comment to the complainant or any other person of the SC community. The ingredients for commission of any offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act are not attracted qua her. She has already joined the investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. No useful purpose would be served, if she is detained in custody. With these submissions, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be accepted and she deserves to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that the allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. The appellant made a comment on video uploaded on YouTube thereby intending to intentionally insult, intimidate the members of SC castes community within public view and to promote feelings of enmity hatred or ill- will against members of such community. The provisions of SC/ST Act are prima facie attracted in this case and as such the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was certainly applicable. It is argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, did not commit any illegality or irregularity in passing the