IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206 Date of decision: 14.11.2025 Anil Kumar ... Appellant Vs.

State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Narinder Dadwal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

----

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’) by the appellant challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby an application filed by him for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 82 dated 16.05.2024, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 of IPC, Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Panipat Sadar, District Panipat, had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on 16.05.2024 on the basis of a written complaint filed by the complainant Mandeep alleging therein that on 12.05.2024 at about 7.30 P.M., when his aunt Suman was coming back from Gurudwara Sahib, Ranjeet, Anmol, Gurmukh, Rajbir, Sukhvinder and his brother and 10-15 other persons misbehaved with his aunt and used abusive words and manhandled her and stated that they would kill her nephew Mandeep i.e. the complainant. His aunt came at the house and disclosed the entire facts to them. After some time, the above said accused persons by taking weapons in their hands entered in the house and started to beat him. On hearing noises, Panjab, Narender and Gurcharan came at the spot. The said accused persons and Diler Singh also gave injuries to them and on hearing noises of quarrel, many persons gathered there. On which, the accused persons proclaimed that on that day they were saved but they would kill them and ran away along with their respective weapons. The injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Panipat for treatment. He prayed that legal action be taken against the culprits. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and the same are going on. During investigation, Narender Kumar, who was from the complainant party, stated that the accused persons had uttered the words xxx, xxx, xxx. Offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act were added. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant has filed an application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat but the same had been dismissed, vide impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant on the grounds and it is argued by his counsel 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 he was not named in the FIR. No specific role had been attributed to him. There was delay of one day in reporting the matter to the police which had not been explained. There was no allegation in the FIR that either of the accused used any caste related derogatory words against the complainant. Such allegations were levelled after a gap of ten days from the date of alleged incident. He was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Shera which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He is ready to join investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is not required. The provisions of Section 3 of SC/ST Act are not attracted against the appellant. The co-accused Rajbir, Diler Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Satvinder Singh have been extended benefit of pre arrest bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat wrongly observed that the provisions of 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), were not attracted. In view of the allegations qua commission of offence punishable under Se