IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.102 CRA-S-1096-2026 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 RAVINDER SINGH @ RICKY ...Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Sukhveer S. Killianwali, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant in FIR No. 252 dated 23.10.2024, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar, under Sections 115(2), 351(1), 3(5), 194(1), 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Sections 323, 506, 34, 159, 325 IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the SC/ST Act, which were added later on

11.12.2025 vide G.D. No. 28.

2. On the basis of the statement of the complainant–respondent No.2, alleging that the appellant Ravinder Singh @ Ricky had hit her parked car and thereafter attempted to run over her and her sister with his vehicle, followed by abuses, threats and assault by co-accused including use of a baseball bat causing injuries, the present FIR No. 252 dated 23.10.2024 was registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar under Sections 115(2), 351(1), 3(5), 194(1) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During investigation, on the basis of the MLR and opinion of the doctor declaring one of the injuries to be grievous in nature, offence under Section 117(2) of BNS was added vide GD No. 28 dated 10.11.2024. Since the offences initially involved were bailable in nature, the appellant and co- accused were released on bail by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the complainant approached this Hon’ble Court by way of Criminal Writ Petition No. CRM-M-56337-2025 seeking fair investigation and addition of appropriate provisions under the SC/ST Act, which was disposed of with directions to the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar to consider the representation. Subsequently, after recording supplementary statement and examining the material including caste certificate, offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was added in the present FIR vide GD No. 28 dated 11.12.2025, i.e. after a considerable delay of more than one year from the date of registration of the FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the present case is a result of previous enmity, as the appellant along with other residents of the locality had earlier submitted complaints against the complainant party regarding their nuisance and unlawful activities, and on account thereof, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that even as per the prosecution version, the injuries attributed are simple in nature and only one injury was kept for X-ray, and therefore, no serious offence is made out against the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the bar contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case, as there is no specific allegation of caste-based insult against the appellant, no averment that the alleged occurrence took place in public view, and the essential ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act are completely missing. It is also argued that the provisions of the SC/ST Act have been added after an inordinate delay of more than one year, which clearly shows that the same is an afterthought and has been incorporated with a mala fide intention. It is further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India, 2020(2) SCC (Cri) 657 has held that where no prima facie case is made out under the SC/ST Act, the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A would not apply and the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is a law-abiding citizen having deep roots in soc