IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206+207+209 CRA-S-289-2026 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 Manjit Kaur ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CRA-S-552-2026 Jagdeep Kaur ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CRA-S-897-2026 Jaswinder Singh & others ....Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Hakam Singh, Advocate for the appellants. (in all appeals)

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2/Complainant. (in all appeals)

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned three appeals filed on behalf of appellants seeking grant of anticipatory bail in DDR No.3 dated 15.12.2025 under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short as ‘SC/ST Act’) and sections 115(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter in short as ‘BNS’), in case FIR No.180 dated 14.12.2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 298, 115, 191(3), 190 of BNS, at Police Station Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar (Rural).

2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that the appellants along with other co-accused had tried to run over their vehicle upon the complainant party and also threatened and abused them in the name of their caste, due to some old enmity.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the appellants have not committed any such offence and no overact has been attributed to the present appellants and only vague allegations have been imputed in the entire DDR. He argued that the present case is of version and cross-version wherein the complainant party initially attacked the appellants and the provisions of SC/ST Act have been invoked only to exert pressure upon the appellants to compromise the matter. He further argued that the essential ingredients for invoking the provisions of SC/ST Act are missing from the present case as the alleged incident has not took place in public view and private communications do not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. Further, 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, Amritsar, vide order dated

19.01.2026.

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 to the appellants on the ground that the allegations levelled against them are serious in nature and they have been specifically named in the FIR. He argued that the appellants have used derogatory caste-based words for the complainant party in public view i.e., during Zila Parishad elections with an intent to insult them in the name of their caste. He further submits that the ingredients of SC/ST Act are fully satisfied and as such grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants is barred under section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Hence custodial interrogation of the appellants is required for fair and proper investigation and to take the investigation to its logical end. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/Complainant adopts the arguments made by the counsel for the State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by the appellants and submits that the appellants have actively part