IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH G@ A ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 06.05.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 08.05.2026

3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 8.05.2026 website

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, for the respondent No.2-complainant.

***

MANISHA BATRA , J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’) by the appellant challenging the order dated 09.04.2026 passed in case arising out of FIR No.620 dated 29.09.2024 registered under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 126, 190, 191(3), 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Krishna Gate, Thanesar, Kurukshetra, District Kuruksherta, whereby an application for grant of anticipatory bail as filed by the appellant, had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal are that on 29.09.2024, the appellant accompanied by the co-accused had wrongfully restrained the complainant, committed house trespass after making preparation for causing hurt to him and had further caused hurt to him by striking blows with gandasi, danda and sword. The respondent No.2- complainant who belongs to Scheduled Caste community prayed for taking action in the matter and then the aforementioned FIR was registered. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 09.04.2026.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order dated 09.04.2026 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take into consideration the fact that the injuries that have been sustained by the respondent No.2 have been opined to be simple in nature. There is no material on record to prove that he had intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with intent to humiliate him or had abused him by the name of his caste in any place within public purview. The ingredients for commissions of offences punishable under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of SC/ST Act are not at all attracted and, therefore, the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act was also not attracted in this case. It is argued that the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take all these points into consideration at the time of dismissal of the bail application. The co-accused has been extended benefit of bail. A compromise has been arrived at between the respondent No.2 and himself and the respondent No.2 has not objection, if the appellant is extended benefit of anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, argued that the appeal deserves to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be extended benefit of pre arrest bail.

4. Written response has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by him that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. For conducting proper and thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the appellant is required. The ingredients for commission of offences punishable under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of SC/ST Act are attracted in this case and hence the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is applicable.

It is, therefore, argued that the appeal does not deserve to be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainan