IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :04.09.2025 Pronounced on: 08.09.2025 Roshan Deen @ Roshan and another ......Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr.Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.

Mr. H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate for respondent No.2 (through hybrid mode).

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

Aggrieved of the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SBS Nagar, designated under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at SBS Nagar, whereby the application for anticipatory bail preferred by the appellants has been dismissed, the appellants has preferred this appeal.

2. As per record one FIR for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) 3(5) BNS and Sections 3(1) (e) & 3(1) (r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been lodged in Police Station Rahon, District SBS Nagar, as FIR No.0093 dated 22.07.2025. One of the co-accused named in the above mentioned FIR is the appellant. The appellants when approached, the learned Special Judge, for anticipatory bail, it did not find favour of the Court and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved of the abovesaid order the present appeal has been preferred.

3. This appeal has been filed by the appellants, on the ground that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that any case for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) 3(5) BNS and Sections 3(1) (e) & 3(1) (r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out against the appellants, and that there is delay of more than 7 months in lodging the FIR, which in itself is a proof of the fact that a false story has been cooked up by the prosecution. According to appellants the learned trial Court has ignored the fact that any incident, as claimed by the complainant, had not taken place in public view and, therefore, any case under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out against the appellants. While seeking for the setting aside of impugned order, the appellants has sought the benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. Briefly stated the facts projected by the prosecution are that FIR of this case came into being on the statement of complainant Avtar Singh. The complainant alleged that he was an agriculturist belonging to scheduled caste. According to complainant he wanted to purchase land for construction of a hall in the name of “Baba Sahib Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar”, when Kulwinder Singh told him that Baljit Singh was willing to sell his land. According to complainant an agreement to sell with regard to sale of land had been executed between him and Baljeet Singh on 26.12.2023 and on that day a sum of Rs.

15,00,000/- was paid as advance. As per complainant subsequently, i.e. on 01.03.2024, 06.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 the amounts of Rs.11,00,000/-, Rs.27,96,875/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- were paid by him to Jagtar Singh. It was also claimed by the complainant that possession of the land was also handed over to him by the vendor, but later on, i.e. on 02.12.2024, when he was collecting bricks in the above mentioned plot Jagtar Singh, Baljeet Singh, Roshan and Farid, armed with lathies, came there and entered into a scuffle with the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the abovesaid assailants forcibly removed his clothes and when he raised hue and cry for help, and public started gathering on the spot, the assailants fled form the spot while hurling abuses in the name of complainant’s caste.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that with regard to the same incidents three complaints were preferred by respondent No.2 and that in the first two complaints there were no allegations against the appellants, but, as an after though