IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 25^th February, 2025 Pronounced on: 4 ^th March, 2025 Bansi Lal and another ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act, 1989’) against the order dated 11.02.2025 as passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal in case arising out of FIR No. 17 dated 29.01.2025 registered under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 333, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 3(2) (va) the Act, 1989, at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal, whereby an application for grant of anticipatory bail as filed by the appellants, 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 statement recorded by respondent No.2-complainant Raj Kumar @ Kala alleging that on 28.01.2025 at about 10:00 AM, he was working in cattle shed when the accused Nafe Singh, Kamlesh and their son Monu entered inside. They started calling bad names to him by abusing him in the name of his caste and extended threat to him to vacate the shed. Accused Monu caught him by neck and took him out of the shed. On hearing the clamour, Laxmi Chand his elder brother also reached there. The accused started assaulting his brother and himself while giving abuses to them. Several neighbourers collected at the spot. In the meanwhile, the appellants accompanied by the co-accused reached there and they were armed with sticks. All of them, proclaimed that the complainant and his family members being dedh and chamars should be taught a lesson. They opened an attack upon the complainant and his family members with sticks. The appellant- accused- Sandeep gave fist blows to the complainant leading to damage of his teeth. The co-accused also assaulted them. In the meanwhile, police has reached there and saved them from the clutches of the accused. The complainant was rushed to the hospital and was given treatment. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and the same are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the appellants moved application for grant of pre-arrest bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal vide order dated

11.02.2025.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants 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 offence under Section 333 of BNS had been deleted during the course of investigation. All the other offences under the provisions of BNS are bailable in nature. The provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989 were not at all attracted. It is a case of a version and cross- version as an FIR bearing No. 21 dated 01.02.2025 has been registered on the basis of complaint filed by the appellants side on 01.02.2025. Appellants are ready to join the investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. Therefore, it has been urged that the impugned order is liable to the set aside, appeal deserves to be accepted and they deserve to be given benefit of pre-arrest bail.

4. Status report had been filed by respondent-State. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General Haryana assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant has vehemently argued that there are specific and serious allegations against the appellants. The provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 are attracted in the case and the same certainly barred grant of anticipatory bail to th