IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 Jagtar Singh and another ... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot Advocate and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gurpartap Singh Bhullar, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Sarabjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

Complaint No. Dated Police Station Sections

03 2019 Lehra, District 452, 307, 506, 34 IPC and 3 of Sangrur S.C/S.T. Act Aggrieved by the dismissal of their bail under section 482 BNSS, 2023, both the accused have come up before this court by filing an appeal under section 14-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SCSTPOA), seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The appellants had filed a bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, which was dismissed on 08.11.2024.

3. In Prathvi Raj v. Union of India, 2020:INSC:157 [Para 10], AIR 2020 SC 1036, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court read down S. 18 by declaring as follows, [10]. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i)

shall not apply.

4. In paragraph 11 of the grounds of appeal, the accused declare that they have no criminal antecedents.

5. The facts of the case are being taken from judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, which reads as follows:

“3. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and after going through the case file carefully minutely with his able assistance, in the present complaint the occurrence is dated 16.09.2018 at about 07.00PM and the MLR Ex.Cl is dated 16.09.2018 at 08.05 PM meaning thereby that there was no delay in lodging the present complaint. In the MLR it has been opined that injury No.1 to 3 were caused by blunt weapon and ENT/Surgical/ ortho opinion was opined for all three injuries. However, no further medical opinion has come-forth qua these injuries in view of the medical evidence of CW-5 and CW-7. Thus, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 325, 326 cannot be made out against the accused. Further, there are no averments in the complaint regarding the outraging of the modesty of the complainant and the ingredients of the offences section 354 and 354-B are also not made out against the accused. However, there are prima facie allegations in the present complaint that the accused made casteist comments to the complainant and violated Section 3 of SC & ST Act 1989. Further, they trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused injuries to the complainant with intention to kill her and also criminally intimidated and threatened her. Thus, the prima facie ingredients under Sections 307, 452, 506, and 34 IPC and section 3 of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are satisfied against the accused at this stage. However, the complaint is dismissed against the accused under Sections 325, 326, 354, 354-B,509 IPC. Resultantly, the accused are ordered to be summoned under Section 452, 307, 506,34 of IPC and section 3 of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to face trial for 23.10.2024 through ordinary process as well as through speed post through postal department. Complainant is directed to supply sed/22 summons and copy of documents to be sent to the accused.”

7. The appellants’ counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family. Counsel for the appellants submits that version of the complainant not found truthful by police during the investigation and on this ground alone, appellants are enti