CRA-S-1099 v. SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate respondents No.2 and 3. for the respondents No.2 and 3. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. SURYA P This appeal has been filed by the , who is facing a appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is facing a prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, 127(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) of ‘the 127(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ and Section 3 of ‘the Scheduled Ca and Section 3 of stes and the Scheduled Tribes he Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes , hereinafter being referred to as (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989’, hereinafter being referred to as , hereinafter being referred to as (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or the commission of abovementioned offence, the FIR ‘SC/ST Act’. For the commission of abovementioned offence, the FIR or the commission of abovementioned offence, the FIR ‘SC/ST Act’ No.301 dated 28.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Saran, No.301 dated 28.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Saran, No.301 dated 28.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Saran, No.301 dated 28.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Saran, Faridabad, District Faridabad. Faridabad, District Fa GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1099 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 2

2. As per appellant, in the abovementioned case, he had in the abovementioned case, he had approached the Court of learned Special Judge, designated under SC/ST approached the Court of learned Special Judge, designated under SC/ST approached the Court of learned Special Judge, designated under SC/ST approached the Court of learned Special Judge, designated under SC/ST Act, for grant of anticipatory bail, but the learned Special Judge Act, for grant of anticipatory bail by virtue of , but the learned Special Judge, by virtue of , hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, order dated 24.03.2026, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, , hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, order dated 24.03.2026 dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. dismissed the application for anticipatory bail.

3. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the shell, the facts emerging from record are that the aforesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Anand’, (the complainant/ aforesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Anand’, (the complainant/ aforesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Anand’, (the complainant/ aforesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Anand’, (the complainant/ , hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent No.2’ only. It , hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent No.2’ only respondent No.2), hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent No.2’ only respondent No.2 to Scheduled Castes, was alleged by the respondent No.2 that he belonged to Scheduled Castes, was alleged by the respondent No.2 that he belong was alleged by the respondent No.2 that he belong and that on 27.09.2025 at about 08:00 pm, he came to know that his brother, and that on 27.09.2025 at about 08:00 pm, he came to know that his brother, and that on 27.09.2025 at about 08:00 pm, he came to know that his brother, and that on 27.09.2025 at about 08:00 pm, he came to know that his brother, namely ‘Hemant’, was under attack by some as namely ‘Hemant’, was , who were armed by some assailants, who were armed at Ramphal Mandi Chacha Chowk. As per with sticks and steel rods, at Ramphal Mandi Chacha Chowk. As per at Ramphal Mandi Chacha Chowk. As per with sticks and steel rods , he rushed to the spot, where his brother met him and told respondent No.2, he rushed to the spot, where his brother met him and told , he rushed to the spot, where his brother met him and told respondent No.2 that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ajay’, ‘Manu’, a barber shop owner, a bike shop owner, and that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ajay’, ‘Manu’, a barber shop owner, a bike shop owner, and that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ajay’, ‘Manu’, a barber shop owner, a bike shop owner, and that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ajay’, ‘Manu’, a barber shop owner, a bike shop owner, and 8-10 other pers had waylaid him and hurled abuses by using derogatory 10 other persons had waylaid him and hurled abuses by using derogatory had waylaid him and hurled abuses by using derogatory , his brother words in the name of his caste. According to respondent No.2, his brother words in the name of his caste. According to respondent No.2 words in the name of his caste. According to respondent No.2 told him that when he tried to record the abovementioned incident, the told him that when he tried to record the abovementioned incident, the told him that when he tried to record the abovementioned incident, the told him that when he tried to record the abovementioned incident, the thrashed him with sticks assailants snatched his mobile phone and thereafter, thrashed him with sticks assailants snatched his mobile phone and thereafter, assailants snatched his mobile phone and thereafter, and steel rods, while using casteist slurs. and steel rods

4. The respondent No.2 further alleged that his elder brother The respondent No.2 further alleged that his elder brother The respondent No.2 further alleged that his elder brother ‘Dheeraj’, too, had told him that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Manu’ and ‘Ajay’ had blocked ‘Dheeraj’, too, had told him that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Manu’ and ‘Ajay’ had blocked ‘Dheeraj’, too, had told him that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Manu’ and ‘Ajay’ had blocked ‘Dheeraj’, too, had told him that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Manu’ and ‘Ajay’ had blocked his way also, but he managed to escape. As per complainant, he filed his way also, but he managed to escape. As per complainant, he his way also, but he managed to escape. As per complainant, he filed a , when they complaint against ‘Mahesh’, ‘Rakesh’ and wife of ‘Mahesh’, when they complaint against ‘Mahesh’, ‘Rakesh’ and wife of ‘Ma complaint against ‘Mahesh’, ‘Rakesh’ and wife of ‘Ma abuses to the respondent No.2, duly recorded in video were using casteist abuses to the respondent No.2, duly recorded in video abuses to the respondent No.2, duly recorded in video were using casteist GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1099 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 3 camera. According to respondent No.2, despite the abovementioned camera. According to respondent No.2, despite the abovementioned camera. According to respondent No.2, despite the abovementioned camera. According to respondent No.2, despite the abovementioned complaint no action was taken against the culprits. complaint no action was taken against the culprits. complaint no action was taken against the culprits.

5. It It the case of the case of the prosecution the prosecution that pursuant that purs abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. investigation taken up.

7. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission the appellant is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commissio the appellant is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commissio the appellant is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commissio up a false story, he has been falsely implicated of crime, and that by cooking-up a false story, he has been falsely implicated up a false story, he has been falsely implicated of crime, and that by cooking in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, shows that any offence under any contents of the FIR in themselves shows that any offence under any shows that any offence under any contents of out in the present case, and therefore, provision of SC/ST Act is not made out in the present case, and therefore, out in the present case, and therefore, provision of SC/ST Act is not made filed by the appellant, by the Court of learned rejection of bail application, filed by the appellant, by the Court of learned filed by the appellant, by the Court of learned rejection of bail application Special Judge, merely, on the premise that there is a bar for grant of Special Judge, merely, on the premise that there is a bar for grant of Special Judge, merely, on the premise that there is a bar for grant of Special Judge, merely, on the premise that there is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail, is devoid of merit. anticipatory bail, is devoid of merit.

8. r the appellant has also argued that The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that r the appellant has also argued that baring Section Section-3 of SC/ST Act, all the offences alleged in the FIR are 3 of SC/ST Act, all the offences alleged in the FIR are minor in nature, and that there is no allegation that in nature, and that there is any grievous injury was no allegation that any grievous injury was inflicted on the person of brother of respondent No.2 or any other fam inflicted on the person of brother of respondent No.2 inflicted on the person of brother of respondent No.2 or any other family the instant case is . According to learned counsel for the appellant, the instant case is . According to learned counsel for the appellant, member. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the perfect example of sheer misuse perfect example of sheer misuse of Section 3 of SC/ST Act, and that the of Section-3 of SC/ST Act, and that the illegal act of the seal of learned Special Court on the abovementioned illegal act of the seal of learned Special Court on the abovementioned seal of learned Special Court on the abovementioned appellant has further complicated the situation. appellant has further complicated the situation. appellant has further complicated the situation. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1099 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 4

9. With regard to above, it has also been contended by learned With regard to above, it has also been contended by learned With regard to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation that the casteist slur by counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation that the casteist slur by counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation that the casteist slur by counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation that the casteist slur by the appellant or his co-accused was at publ the appellant or his co ic place in public view. In view of accused was at public place in public view. In view of above, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the above, the learned counsel for the appellant above, the learned counsel for the appellant enshrined under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. enshrined under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. enshrined under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. enshrined under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case.

10. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. FIR According to learned State Counsel, in the present case contents of the FIR According to learned State Counsel, in the present case contents of According to learned State Counsel, in the present case contents of make it abundantly clear that there was casteist slur by the appellant & make it abundantly clear that there was casteist sl make it abundantly clear that there was casteist sl accused against the brother of respondent No.2, who was victim of an accused against the brother of respondent No.2, who was victim of accused against the brother of respondent No.2, who was victim of co-accused against the brother of respondent No.2, who was victim of assault and belonged ult and belonged to Scheduled Caste . As per learned counsel for the to Scheduled Caste. As per learned counsel for the complainant, in view of above, once there are specific allegations with complainant, in view of above, once there are specific allegations with complainant, in view of above, once there are specific allegations with complainant, in view of above, once there are specific allegations with of casteist slur at public place in public view, the appellant regard to use of casteist slur at public place in public view, the appellant of casteist slur at public place in public view, the appellant regard to e benefit of anticipatory bail, in view of bar under Section-18 e benefit of anticipatory bail, in view of bar under Section cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail, in view of bar under Section cannot claim th of SC/ST Act. of SC/ST Act

12. The record has been perused carefully. The record has been perused carefully. Hon’ble Supreme Similar situation has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Similar situation has been dealt with by the AIR Court of India in the case of ‘Kiran V/s Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.’ AIR Court of India in the case of ‘Kiran V/s Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.’ Court of India in the case of ‘Kiran V/s Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.’ 2025 SC 4083. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 2025 SC 4083. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 2025 SC 4083. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 2025 SC 4083. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of disclosed the India has propounded that where allegations in FIR prima facie disclosed the India has propounded that where allegations in FIR India has propounded that where allegations in FIR commission of offence under Section-3 of SC/ST Act, commission of offe bar under Section- 3 of SC/ST Act, the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is attracted and the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be 18 of SC/ST Act is attracted and the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be 18 of SC/ST Act is attracted and the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be 18 of SC/ST Act is attracted and the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be given. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1099 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 5

13. In the case of ‘Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. V/s State of In the case of ‘Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. V/s State of In the case of ‘Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. V/s State of