Ajay Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr

CRA-S-3233-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH



CRA-S-3233-2026 (O&M)

Ajay Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents

Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 31.10.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 03.11.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.11.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Ravi Singh Rana, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
None for respondent No. 2.
MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short ‘SC/ST Act’) by the appellant challenging the order dated 20.08.2026
passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at
Jagadhri in case arising out of FIR No.147 dated 25.07.2026 registered under
Sections 190, 191(3), 115, 117(2), 118(1), 126 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-3233-2026 (O&M) -2-
Act at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar, whereby an application
for anticipatory bail as filed by the appellant had been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
appeal are that the aforementioned FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered on the
basis of statement recorded by the complainant Rohit Kumar alleging therein
that on 19.07.2026, at about 11:15 PM, he along with his brother Ravi Kumar
and friend Karan Singh was going towards his house on a motor bike. When they
reached the main road, they were intercepted by the present appellant, who was
already there and who opened an attack upon them. Co-accused Som Nath,
Gurpreet, Amit Kumar, Balram, Aman Kumar, Kamal Kumar, Vansh, Lilu Ram,
Rani and Nanci also reached there and started assaulting the complainant and his
companions due to previous grudges. Co-accused Som Nath hit them with a
stick. Co-accused Gurpreet gave sword blows on the head and left arm of the
complainant, and co-accused Amit Kumar gave a sword blow on the head of
Ravi Kumar. Co-accused Balram, Vansh, Aman, Kamal, Lilu and Rani hit them
with sticks in their hands, whereas co-accused Nanci gave them punches and
slaps. Threats were extended to kill them and then the assailants fled away with
their weapons. The complainant and other injured were taken to hospital.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been
initiated. During the course of investigation, offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act have also been added. On recovery of a sword from co-
accused Gurpreet, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 has also been added.
Apprehending his arrest, the appellant moved an application for grant of
anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide the impugned order.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-3233-2026 (O&M) -3-
4. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
5. 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, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge ignored the fact that the ingredients for commission
of offences punishable under the provisions of SC/ST Act are not at all attracted
qua him. The FIR does not contain any derogatory language relating to the caste
of the complainant or the injured and these provisions have been added later on
only because they belong to Scheduled Caste category. The appellant has been
falsely implicated due to previous enmity and there is a delay of about six days
in lodging of the FIR. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled and
no specific injury has been attributed to him. He was not even present at the spot
initially and had come there on hearing the noise in order to pacify the situation.
Co-accused Kamal Kumar, Nanci @ Nancy, Rani and Som Nath have already
been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. Principle of parity
weighs in his favour. He is a permanent resident of Village Mirzapur and is not
involved in any other case. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial
interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. To buttress
his arguments learned counsel has relied upon the authorities cited as Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 , Ramesh Chandra Vaishya
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668 and Prathvi
Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727 . It is, thus, argued that the
appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. Reply by way of affidavit of Ramesh Kumar, HPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Yamuna Nagar has been filed on behalf of
the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-3233-2026 (O&M) -4-
allegations against the appellant. His name and role find mention in the FIR and
the allegations have been found to be true during investigation. He along with
the co-accused formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of its common
object, they stopped the victims and caused injuries to them with dandas and
sword. The appellant had a danda in his hands, gave danda blows to the victims
and also threatened to kill them. The case of the prosecution is supported by the
MLRs of the victims (Annexures R-1 to R-3), the opinion of the doctor
(Annexure R-4) and a pen drive containing CCTV footage of the incident. The
provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST Act are attracted in this case. For the purpose
of conducting proper and thorough investigation in the matter and for effecting
recovery of the danda, the custodial interrogation of the appellant is required.
There is also an apprehension of his fleeing away and of threat or inducement to
the prosecution witnesses. It is, therefore, argued that the appeal does not deserve
to be allowed.
7. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
8. The appellant is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful
assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object of that
unlawful assembly is alleged to have caused injuries to the members of the
complainant party. The provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) were not
invoked at the time of registration of FIR and have been added subsequently. As
per Section 3(1)(r), any person who intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste in any place within public view,
commits an offence punishable under this provision whereas as per Section
3(1)(s) any person who abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste by caste name
in any place within public view is liable for punishment under this provision. On
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-3233-2026 (O&M) -5-
going through the contents of the FIR, it is apparent that there is no material to
show that the present appellant had either insulted or intimidated the complainant
with intent to humiliate or had abused him by caste name within public view.
The FIR attributes the occurrence to a previous grudge and makes no reference
to the caste of the complainant party. Even the reply filed by the State does not
state that the appellant had uttered any such words. As such, it is a question for
consideration as to whether the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
SC/ST Act are attracted or not? However, on the basis of the allegations, no
prima facie case for commission of these offences is made out. Accordingly, in
the considered opinion of this Court, the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of
SC/ST Act would not apply. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has declined
the prayer on account of this bar, without examining whether a prima facie case
under SC/ST Act was made out from the contents of the FIR. Reference in this
regard can be had to Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra
and Another (2018) 6 SCC 454 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed
that anticipatory bail could be granted if a prima facie case for commission of an
offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out. Even after insertion of Section 18-
A, it was held in Prathvi Raj Chauhan’s case (supra) that the bar would not
apply if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of
the provisions of SC/ST Act.
9. The remaining offences which are alleged to have been committed
by the appellant are triable by Magistrate. It is true that the appellant is stated to
have stopped the complainant party and to have attacked them first. However,
the FIR does not mention any weapon in his hands, the part of the body on which
he had hit or the injury caused by him. Though the reply states that he had given
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-3233-2026 (O&M) -6-
danda blows, no specific injury, much less a grievous one, has been attributed to
him in the FIR or in the reply. Specific sword blows have been attributed to co-
accused Gurpreet and Amit Kumar, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 has
been added on recovery of a sword from co-accused Gurpreet and not from the
appellant. The name of the appellant also does not appear in the list of accused
at column No.7 of the FIR or in the concluding part of the statement of the
complainant where the names of the assailants have been repeated. The effect of
this omission and the plea regarding delay in lodging of the FIR are matters to
be examined at the appropriate stage. Co-accused Nanci @ Nancy, Kamal
Kumar, Rani and Som Nath have already been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court. The very order impugned herein has been set aside qua co-accused Rani.
As per the reply, co-accused Gurpreet and Lilu Ram have been admitted to
anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated
07.09.2026, while co-accused Balram, Aman Kumar and Amit Kumar are on
regular bail. Challan has been presented against co-accused Amit Kumar,
Balram, Aman Kumar and Nanci on 16.09.2026. As far as the danda is
concerned, its recovery can be effected on the appellant joining the investigation
and the MLRs and CCTV footage are already in possession of the police. It is
admitted in the reply that no other criminal case is registered against the
appellant and that no proclamation or warrant has been issued against him. The
apprehension of his fleeing away or of influencing the witnesses is not supported
by any material and can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions.
10. Taking into consideration all these facts, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the appellant deserves to be extended benefit of pre-
arrest bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-3233-2026 (O&M) -7-
aside and the appellant is granted concession of anticipatory bail subject to
compliance of conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In the event of his arrest, the
Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release him on bail subject to his/her
satisfaction. This order shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer
within a period of 15 days from today and cooperate with the
investigation, including in recovery of the weapon of offence, if
any, and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
required.
(ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any Police Officer.
(iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
11. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional
Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any,
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
12. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for
the purpose of deciding the present appeal and the same shall not be construed
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.


03.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document