250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on 27.08.2025 Pronounced on 28.08.2025 Tarsem …… Appellant Versus State of Haryana and Another ....… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Kshitij Bharati, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Kamal Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

*****

1. The appeal under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenges order dated 28.07.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide which application for anticipatory bail of the appellant in FIR No.136 dated 15.06.2025 under Sections 115/76/79 of BNS and Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Kalan Wali, District Dabwali, Haryana was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, relevant for determining the controversy are that Parveen Kaur wife of Vinod Kumar, stated in her complaint to the police that she was running a beauty parlour in Sirsa. On 13.06.2025, she was standing at Pipli Bus Stand with her husband. At about 9:00 PM, while they were talking with Gora Singh son of Chhota Singh, Tarsem Sharma son of Vijay Sharma, resident of Pipli came to the bus stand on his vehicle and told them to shift their bike to one side. Then, Tarsem Sharma abused her and her husband in the name of their caste and tore her clothes. She belonged to caste Majhabi Sikh and Tarsem Sharma, being co-villager was well aware. He assaulted her at bus stand for no reason and misbehaved.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was an unexplained delay of two days in lodging FIR. He then referred to statement of Ram Reet Singh @ Gora Singh, submitting that he was an eye witness of the incident and according to his version before the police, it was a mere case of altercation and scuffle between the complainant and the appellant, in which he intervened but appellant did not abuse the complainant in the name of caste nor tore her clothes. He submitted that the witness had even filed an affidavit in support of this version, as was apparent from the police reply. Referring to the contents of FIR, it was urged that the complainant made sweeping and non-specific allegations which were insufficient to invoke Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Mere claim that the appellant hurled caste based abuses without the specific derogatory words was not sufficient to make out even a prima facie case.

4. It was next submitted that the appellant had been falsely implicated due to a previous dispute between the parties. Referring to Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-5, it was urged that the complainant was involved in two other cases (as accused), one under Section 384/120-B IPC and another under Section 341/23/149/147 IPC which reflected on her veracity. Learned counsel further submitted that custodial interrogation of the appellant was not warranted and he was ready and willing to get the vehicle recovered, if so required; that the injuries suffered by the complainant were minor, possibly self inflicted.

5. Regarding the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, learned counsel referred to Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727 and Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttrkhand (2020) SCC Online SC 907), arguing that the basic ingredients of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not satisfied, therefore, the bar under Section 18 did not apply. Allegations against the appellant were vague and omnibus in nature. Learned counsel also submitted that the offence under Section 76 BNS had been deleted by the Police, not being made out and the rigour of Section 3(1)(W) was not attracted as there was no act of touching the complainant with sexual intent. He urged that a mere scuffle, without the requisite intention did not make out the offence under Section 3(1) of the