IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vijay Pal ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 19.02.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.02.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.02.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Akinchan Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for respondent No. 2/complainant.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act, 1989’) by the appellant against the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby an application filed by him under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 250 dated 18.09.2025, registered under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989 and Sections 115 and 325(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Munak, Karnal, had been dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability of the application.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on 18.09.2025 on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Rohit Kumar alleging therein that he belonged to scheduled caste community. His father was the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Balla. On the same day, at about 10:00 AM, his father made him a call to take the Gram Panchayat’s record and to reach at Math school. On reaching there, he gave the concerned record to his father, who was sitting with Gram Panchayat Secretary, one Panch and some females. His father told him to take some photographs of that place through GPS location and when he started taking those photographs, the appellant, who is husband of one of the female Panch, reached there and started making a video of the persons sitting there. When his act was resisted, he started using abusive language, pushed the complainant and while running out of the office, he proclaimed that “ye saare dedh va kamine ikathe ho rahe hain”. He then had a scuffle with the complainant, extended beatings to him and snatched his gold neck chain, a part of which remained with the complainant.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal but the same had been dismissed by passing the impugned order while observing that that the application was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 18-A of the Act, 1989.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

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 did not take into consideration the fact that the allegations levelled in the FIR were false on the face of the same and had been levelled only with intent to implicate the appellant in a false case. No such incident had taken place. In fact, the wife of the appellant had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Karnal as the village Sarpanch was trying to block the street by making obstructions and was also not allowing her to participate in the Panchayat’s meetings. Vague and general allegations of sweeping nature have been levelled. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No