IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.01.2026 Mukesh Kumar alias Kaka & anr. ....Appellants Versus State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehel, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Daljeet Singh Kahlon, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot dismissing the application of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0153 dated 26.09.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short as ‘SC/ST Act’), at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that due to some old enmity, the appellants along with other co-accused had assaulted the complainant and her husband-Bodh Raj and also abused them in the name of their caste. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the appellants have no concern with the said offence. The present FIR is counterblast to FIR No.155 filed against husband of complainant. He argued that no offence under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants because the essential ingredients i.e. public view is missing and the alleged injuries are self-suffered. He further argued that the name of the appellants was cropped up merely because they were present near the spot of occurrence but no specific role has been attributed to them. No recovery is to be effected from them. He further argued that the custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required for any recovery and they are ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending their arrest, the appellants had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, vide order dated

08.10.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the appellants are serious in nature. He argued that the appellants have actively participated in the offence and were specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that as per the status report, the appellants along with other co-accused had caught hold of the husband of complainant and stripped him naked when they were going towards Highway and insulted them in the name of their caste. He further submitted that the entire incident was recorded by passersby and video of incident has been taken on record by the police. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the appellants is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants, has contended that the appellants have played an active role in the crime and, thus, do not deserve the concession of bail.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘