SUMAN LATA v. STATE OF HAR HARYANA AND ANOTHER

by the appellant against the order dated 01.10.2025 .2025 passed by the Court of Learne dge, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in case ar ase arising out of FIR No.231 dated dated 20.08.2025 registered under Sections 3(1)(r) (1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of Scheduled C led Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of At of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hort ‘SC/ST Act’) at Police Station Beri, District Jhajj t Jhajjar whereby the application for g n for grant of pre-arrest bail as filed by the appellant ha llant had been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case relevant for Brief t for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the hat the aforementioned FIR was regis ritten s registered on the basis of a written complaint submitt ubmitted by the complainant-Deepak K at on epak Kumar alleging therein that on AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-3224-202 2025 (O&M) 2

28.01.2023, he wa he was watching videos in his mobile App. obile phone through YouTube App. and watched a vi d a video at ND Haryana channel. nel. He started going through the comments made o ade on that video and found that the hat the petitioner, who is a Haryana Police employee loyee had given comments while u hile using objectionable language against the mem members of Scheduled Caste com e community casting slurs on the community. She h She had publicly and openly written t ritten the following words :- “Unk Unka to varsha biharan hai unka ke ka ke karle jinka biharan bhi nahin ahti chudi bhi nahin rahti chamari ari bhi nahin rahti aur ghr p aayi hoi b oi b bhaj h” By alleging that by using the aforem By al forementioned words, the petitioner had hurt the sentim sentiments of members of SC commu ommunity to which the complainant belonged and had d had insulted them, he, therefore, pr ore, prayed for taking action against the petitioner.

After registration of FIR, investigati After stigation proceedings were initiated and are underway erway. Apprehending her arrest, the st, the petitioner filed an application for grant of pre- -arrest bail which has been dismi dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessio Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide order order dated 01.10.2025. Feeling aggrieved from the om the above order, the instant appeal appeal has been filed.

It is argued by learned counsel for th It is a l for the appellant that the impugned order is not sustain sustainable in the eyes of law as while s while passing the same, the learned Trial Court ignor ignored the fact that the appellant ellant herself had never made any comment on YouT YouTube video. In fact, her daughte aughter studying in 9th standard had AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-3224-202 2025 (O&M) 3 been using her ph her phone and it was she who made n the made the alleged comments on the video. The YouT YouTube video on which the comme gs to omment had been posted belongs to the father of the f the appellant. The appellant has t has never made any caste related comment to the c the complainant or any other person The person of the SC community. The ingredients for co for commission of any offence under Act under the provisions of SC/ST Act are not attracted acted qua her. She has already jo Her ady joined the investigation. Her custodial interroga terrogation is not required. No usefu d, if useful purpose would be served, if she is detained i ined in custody. With these subm t the submissions, it is urged that the impugned order is rder is liable to be set aside and the a d the appeal deserves to be accepted and she deserves t erves to be extended benefit of pre-arre arrest bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel assi Per co r the el assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 h No.2 has argued that the allegations ag ions against the appellant are serious in nature. The a The appellant made a comment on Tube nt on video uploaded on YouTube thereby intending nding to intentionally insult, intimida timidate the members of SC castes community within within public view and to promote fe - te feelings of enmity hatred or ill- will against memb members of such community. The t are The provisions of SC/ST Act are prima facie attrac attracted in this case and as such th f the uch the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was c was certainly applicable. It is argue argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, d dge, did not commit any illegality ality or irregularity in passing the impugned order a rder and therefore, the same does no e on oes not warrant any interference on merits or otherwis therwise. It is further argued that th hat though the appellant has joined investigation in co in compliance of order dated 16.10. 6.10.2025 and has also handed over the device/mobile mobile phone used for the purpo purpose of making objectionable AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-3224-202 2025 (O&M) 4 comments on the v n the video, however, no exceptional o tional or extra-ordinary circumstance for grant of pre-ar arrest bail is made out in her favou r favour. Moreso, the bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST A C/ST Act is certainly attracted. With , it is With these broad submissions, it is stressed that the ap t the appeal is not maintainable and is l nd is liable to be set aside.

This Court has heard the rival submis This C ubmissions made by learned counsel for both the parties parties at considerable length.

The respondent No.2-complainant ha The ant has placed on record Annexure R2/2, photocopy copy of transcript of some conversa nversation which is shown to have taken place betwee between the petitioner and respondent al of ndent No.2. On a cursory perusal of this conversation ation it is revealed that after filing of ling of complaint by the respondent No.2, the present resent appellant had made a call to r h the ll to respondent No.2 in which the appellant is shown shown to be questioning the respond espondent No.2 and asking him the reason of filing co ling complaint against her and extendi The xtending threats to him as well. The allegations prima rima facie make out a case for co for commission of offences under Section 3(1)(r) and )(r) and 3(1)(u) of SC/ST Act. Undou Undoubtedly, despite the bar created under Section 18A n 18A of the SC/ST Act that the prov e provisions for grant of anticipatory bail are not applic applicable to the offences committed t has mitted under this Act, this Court has extra-ordinary pow ry power to entertain a plea of an accu in a n accused for grant of bail even in a petition filed und d under Section 482 of BNSS. H n be S. However, that power can be exercised, if it is r it is revealed that no prima facie mate st of material exists warranting arrest of the accused in a c in a case.

It is made clear that the observations It is m tions made hereinabove are only for the purpose of dec of deciding the present appeal and th and the same shall not be construed as an expression o sion of opinion on the merits of the ca the case.

The application bearing No.CRM The CRM-46189-2025 as filed by the respondent No.2 h No.2 has become infructuous, in view ed of view of the order and is disposed of accordingly.

24.03.2026 Amit Sharma (cid:1) (cid:1) (MANISHA BATRA)(cid:1) (MAN JUDGE(cid:1) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:1) Yes/No(cid:1) AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.