*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J(ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present appeal is for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant in case FIR No.107 dated 20.08.2025 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 1989 (hereinafter in short as ‘SC/ST Act’) and Sections 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts as per the case of prosecution are that the complainant-Sarabjit Singh, who is Sarpanch of the Village, had sent notice to the appellant and the co-accused to remove their dung from the water pond of Village, but they did not remove the same and instead abused complainant in the name of his caste and also threatened to kill him.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that even if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, then also, no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out. The complainant and the appellant belong to the same village. He argued that in fact, a civil dispute was going on between the complainant and the appellant. Initially, the appellant made a police complaint but no action had been taken as respondent No.2-Sarpanch had links with the local political leaders. Thereafter, the appellant had filed a petition i.e. CRM-M-43030-2025 before this Court for issuance of directions to the police officials to take action and after the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, FIR No.100 dated 12.08.2025 was registered against the complainant and his associates. It has also been contended that the present FIR dated 20.08.2025 was registered as a counter blast to the said FIR dated 12.08.2025 after a gap of 08 days, as a grudge against the appellant. Even otherwise, it is not stated in the FIR that the present appellant had used any specific word, which falls in the definition of prohibited word. He argues that after the initial investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed for cancellation of the present FIR, which further substantiates the innocence of the appellant. He submits that the co-accused has already been granted concession of bail on 13.10.2025. He further submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the appellant are serious in nature. He argued that the appellant has been specifically named in the FIR and abused the complainant in the name of his caste. He further submitted that grant of anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of SC/ST Act. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. At this stage, Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. He has also opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record.

7. In the present appeal, it is evident from the status report from CDR's of appellant, he was not found present at the spot of occurrence at the relevant time and the investigating agency had filed for cancellation of present FIR. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant regarding applicability of the provisions of the Act would require deeper examination during trial. Moreover, no specific overt act has been attributed to the appellant and no recovery is stated to be effected from him. In these circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail and the bar of