Anticipatory bail request in non-bailable offences involving the SC/ST Act is denied when prima-facie evidence and corroborated witness statements indicate the commission of the offence, despite claims of political rivalry.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 12.05.2026, whereby the anticipatory bail of the appellant in case bearing FIR No.125 dated 29.04.2026 registered under Section 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot, Punjab, has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

3. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the allegations levelled by the complainant that the appellant along with his son Ranjit Singh and other unknown persons had been continuously harassing the complainant and her family by using caste based derogatory remarks and threats. It was alleged that on 22.12.2025, the appellant came to the house of the complainant and started abusing her and her family by using insulting caste related words, namely “Kutte Chuhre Diyan Muchha Putt Devange” and further threatened them by saying “Kutte Chuhria Nuu Hor Ki Sodhi Sahib Keha Jawe”. It was further alleged that on 25.12.2025, the appellant again entered the house of the complainant and used derogatory caste related words by stating “Kutte Chuhre Muchha Rakhde Han”. Thereafter, the appellant and his son allegedly threatened the complainant and her family by stating that they had direct relations with goons and miscreants and also threatened them with dire consequences. It was further alleged that in the evening of 25.12.2025, the appellant along with his son and 2-3 unknown persons armed with 12 bore guns roamed near the house of the complainant and threatened to kill them if they came out of the house. The motive behind the occurrence has been stated to be a dispute regarding a piece of land purchased by the complainant side.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry. It is submitted that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 71 years. Learned counsel has further contended that the allegations levelled in the present FIR are false, fabricated and concocted. It is argued that the inquiry conducted by the concerned police officer was one-sided, biased and conducted under political influence without properly hearing the appellant side or verifying the allegations from the villagers. It is further submitted that prior to registration of the present FIR, an application was moved by Sukhpreet Kaur wife of Bhagga Singh against the appellant and others, upon which an inquiry was conducted by the concerned police officials of Police Station Sadar Faridkot. During the said inquiry, statements of the parties were recorded and it was found that there was no truth in the allegations regarding use of abusive and casteist remarks against the complainant party and no abusive language was found to have been used. It was accordingly recommended that no further action was required and the complaint be filed. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that thereafter, the complainant approached the Scheduled Castes Commission and only on the directions issued by the said Commission, the present FIR came to be registered. It is thus contended that there is no truth in the allegations levelled against the appellant.

5. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the present appeal and submitted that specif