IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:14.10.2025 Date of decision:17.10.2025 Vijay Singh @ Bhumi ... Appellant Vs.

State of Haryana & another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No.2.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

The Instant Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) by the appellant seeking quashing of order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in case arising out of FIR No.318, dated 15.06.2020, registered under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Sadar Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, whereby an application filed by the appellant for grant of regular bail was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the appellant had been booked for commission of aforementioned offences on the allegations that on 12.06.2020, he along with co-accused had opened an assault upon the complainant and had voluntarily caused injuries to him and criminally intimidated him. Appellant was extended benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court on 11.01.2021. He joined investigation and was facing trial. He absented himself subsequently due to which his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State. Proclamation proceedings were initiated against him and he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 04.09.2024. He was arrested again on 02.08.2025. Application for grant of regular bail as filed by him was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide the impugned order.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned Court below has ignored the fact that he had been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. It was on account of the fact that an oral compromise had been arrived at between his family and the complainant and they had decided to bury the hatches. The appellant had gone to Spain while considering his presence was not required. His absence was not intentional. He is ready to abide the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the appeal deserves to be accepted and he deserves to be released on bail.

5. Respondent No.2 had been duly served but there is no representation on his behalf.

6. Written response and custody certificate have been filed by the respondent/State. Learned State counsel has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The appellant had been declared a proclaimed person. There are chances of his absconding again, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

8. The appellant is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple injuries to the complainant and criminally intimidated him. Since the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Castes community, hence the provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act were invoked. The appellant was declared a proclaimed person on 04.09.2024. He is in custody since 02.08.2025. The trial is going on. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody any more. The petitioner has clean antecedents. Keeping in view the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the extent of two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court/CJM concerned. He shall also give copy of