1.2026 Babli and a i & Anr. v. Vers State of Ha of Haryana & Ors.

Judgment

1. Appellants have filed the present appeal for grant o rant of anticipatory ipatory bail in case FIR No. 319 date dated 07.11.2025, registered again against them, unde under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 333, 333, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention o tion of Atrocities) cities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Kala Kalanaur, District Rohtak.

2. Relevant facts as emerging rging from documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:- On 6.11.2025, an intimation w ion was received in the Police Statio tation regarding

ing admission of injured Shri Niw Niwas and Sanjay, son of Satyawa Singh, both both residents of village Basana, Di a, District Rohtak, in CHC, Kalanau anaur. On reachin ching at CHC, Kalanaur, it came to me to his notice that injured has bee s been GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 3825-2025 2- -2 referred to d to Government Hospital, Rohtak htak. On the following day, i.e., o .e., on

7.11.2025, 025, HC Pawan Kumar along with C ith Constable Priyanka arrived at th at the hospital an l and after taking permission from from Doctor on duty, questioned th ed the injured, on , one of them, namely, Shri Niwas g as gave a written complaint pointin inting therein tha that he is running a grocery shop n op next to his house. His daughter- -in- law, Pinki inki is Sarpanch of village Basana. na. In the evening of 6.11.2025, Bab Babli (appellant lant No.1) came to their house and and questioned his daughter-in-la (Pinki) as as to why MNREGA wages have n ve not been cleared. Pinki explaine lained her positio sition and assured that the money w ey would be paid by the Governme very soon. on. Though at that point of time, B e, Babli left the spot, but in an ang mood. Lat Later on, around 7 PM, aforesaid aid Babli (appellant No.1) along wi g with her sons M ns Manjeet, Ankit and daughter Jy Jyoti (appellant No.2) entered th ed the shop of co f complainant and without any pro y provocation again used derogato gatory language a ge as also assaulted him. As pe s per complainant, Manjeet stabbe screw drive driver in his stomach. When Sonu ( nu (worker of complainant) rushed hed to his rescue scue, he was also not spared. d. On hearing hue and cries ies of complainan inant, people started gathering n g near at which point in time, th e, the assailants nts including two appellants fled a ed away. Complainant requested th ed the police auth authorities to take legal action agai against the accused. On the basis of the said comp complaint and Medico legal report o eport of all the inju he injured, a formal case vide FIR FIR No. 319 dated 07.11.2025, wa registered a tered against the appellants, under Sec er Sections 115(2), 351(3), 333, 3(5) , 3(5) of BNS and S and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s) of of Scheduled Caste and Schedule heduled Tribe (Prev (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19 ct, 1989, at Police Station Kalanau alanaur, District Ro Rohtak. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 3825-2025 3- -3

3. Apprehending their arrest, app st, appellants moved an application fo tion for grant of an t of anticipatory bail before the lear learned Additional Sessions Judg Judge, Rohtak, wh ak, which was dismissed vide order da der dated 28.11.2025. Aggrieved of th d of the same, the p , the present appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel, at the outs e outset, submits that appellants hav ts have been falsely falsely implicated in the present case. se. No specific allegations have bee ve been levelled ag led against them. Initially, the FIR w FIR was registered against them und m under Sections 11 ons 115(2), 351(3), 333, 3(5) of BNS f BNS and later on, as an after though thought, offences un ces under Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)( 3(1)(s) of SC and ST Act were adde e added. Learned co ned counsel further submits that un hat unexplained delay of one day day in lodging the ing the FIR, suggests that incident has nt has been given a different colour b lour by the compla omplainant party only with a view to ew to harass appellants and their fami r family members, a bers, as also to extract illegal monetary onetary benefit from them. Continuing further learned c rned counsel submits that in fact th fact the complainan lainant party had assaulted the appell appellants but for reasons best know known, police did n e did not initiate action on their compl complaint and rather false FIR has b registered a tered against them. Further, no specifi specific injury has been attributed to th d to the appellants. llants. Learned counsel next submits th the FIR, mits that allegations levelled in the FIR when appr appreciated in the light of conne connecting circumstances brought o ught on record, no d, no offence u/s 3(2)(va) of SC/ST C/ST Act is made out. Further as p r as per learned cou ed counsel, though presence of appel appellants, is not needed for custodi ustodial interrogatio rogation, as nothing is to be recovere covered at their instance, but they a they are nonetheless theless willing to join the investigatio stigation as and when called for by th r by the Investigatin stigating Officer. Primarily on thes these grounds, it was prayed th ed that concession ession of pre-arrest bail be granted to t ed to the appellants. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 3825-2025 4- -4

5. Reply by way of an affidavit o idavit of Mr. Gulab Singh, HPS Depu Deputy Superintend rintendent of Police, District Rohtak h htak has been placed on record. In para In paras 12 and 13 nd 13 thereof, the role of the appella appellants has been specified. As p As per prosecution cution, appellant No.1 abused comp complainant and her daughter-in-la Pinki on ac i on account of non receipt of wages wages under MNREGA and thereafte ereafter, she in conn n connivance with her sons Manjeet, anjeet, Ankit and appellant No.2 aga arrived at ed at the shop of complainant and ga nd gave slaps/fist blows to him (c) an Sanjay @ S ay @ Sonu. Further, at the instance of ance of appellant No.1, her son Manje Manjeet who was a was armed with Screw Driver stabbe stabbed Sanjay @ Sonu with the sam he same and also us lso used derogatory words in the nam he name of ‘Caste’ against complaina plainant party. Learned State counsel subm submits that the bar created und d under Section 18 on 18 of the SC/ST Act is attracted in cted in the present case. There being n eing no illegality or ality or infirmity in the impugned orde d order dated 28.11.2025 passed by th d by the learned Ad ed Additional Sessions Judge, Rohta Rohtak. Learned State counsel furth further submits tha its that custodial interrogation of the a f the appellants is needed to throw lig ow light on the intr e intricacies involved in the case. D Dismissal of the petition has bee as been d for. prayed for.

6. I have heard the learned co ed counsel for the parties and gon d gone through the gh the documents on record.

7. Before expressing any opin opinion on the merits of the riv he rival contentions ntions raised by learned counsel for for the petitioner and learned Sta ed State counsel, it sel, it would be appropriate to refer refer to certain relevant judgments o ents of Hon'ble Su ble Supreme Court, wherein the factor factors to be kept in mind while dealin dealing with an app an application for grant of anticipatory ipatory bail, have been discussed. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 3825-2025 5- -5

8. Hon’ble the Supreme Cou Court in “P. Chidambaram v m vs. Directorate orate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SC 3 SCC 791), has observed as under: der:- “67. Ordinarily, arrest f is a part of procedure of investigation to secure not onl t only the presence of the accused b ed but several other purposes. Power ower under Section 438 Cr.P.C 197 1973 is an extraordinary power an r and the same has to be exercise rcised sparingly. The privilege of the f the pre-arrest bail should be grante ranted only in exceptional cases. T s. The judicial discretion conferre upon the court has to be prope roperly exercised after application tion of mind as to the nature and gra gravity of the accusation; possibili ibility of applicant fleeing justice an e and other factors to decide wheth hether it is a fit case for grant ant of anticipatory bail. Grant nt of anticipatory bail to some ex e extent interferes in the sphere ere of investigation of an offence nce and hence, the court must b st be circumspect while exercisin cising such power for grant nt of anticipatory bail. Anticipator atory bail is not to be granted as as a matter of rule and it has to b to be granted only when the court ourt is convinced that exceptional cir l circumstances exist to resort to th to that extraordinary remedy.”

9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court w ourt while deciding the case titled a titled as “Ms. X Vs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and and another” (2023 SCC Online S ne SC 279) held a eld as under:- “11.1. We propose to take a e a quick look at the consideration ations that ought to govern grant of a t of anticipatory bail. There are a lin a line of decisions of this court tha that have underscored the fact th ct that while deciding an application tion for bail, the court ought to refra efrain GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 3825-2025 6- -6 from undertaking a detailed a ed analysis of the evidence, the focu being on the prima facie issue ssues including consideration of som f some reasonable grounds that woul would go to show if the accused ha d has committed the offence or thos those facts that would reflect on th on the seriousness of the offence. The . The self-imposed restraint on delvin elving deep into the analysis of the e the evidence at that stage is for val reasons, namely, to prevent an nt any prejudice to the case set up b up by the prosecution or the defence ence likely to be taken by the accuse and to keep all aspects of t of the matter open till the trial rial is concluded.

12. In Prasanta Kumar Sa r Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasan asanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Ch h Chatterjee and another), a Divisio ivision Bench of this Court had highli ighlighted the factors that ought to b t to be in mind while con considering the anticipatory ba application and had stated tha that :- "9. We are of the opinion tha n that the impugned order is clear learly unsustainable. It is trite that that this Court does not, normall mally, interfere with an order passe assed by the High Court granting o ing or rejecting bail to the accused. sed. However, it is equally incumbe upon the High Court to exe exercise its discretion judiciousl iously, cautiously and strictly in com compliance with the basic principl ciples laid down in a plethora of dec f decisions of this Court on the poin point. It is well settled that, among o ng other circumstances, the factors tors to be borne in mind while conside nsidering an application for bail are l are: (i) whether there is any prim prima facie or reasonable ground und to believe that the accused had co ad committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the a he accusation; (iii)severity of the punishment ent in the event of conviction; GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 3825-2025 7- -7 (iv)danger of the accused abs absconding or fleeing, if released o sed on bail; (v) character, behaviour, mea means, position and standing of th of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence be ce being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension sion of the witnesses being influence enced; (viii) danger, of course, of just justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”

10. In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ etty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v av vs. The State tate of Maharashtra and another, her, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court held that “Anticipatory ba ry bail is an exceptional remedy an y and ought not t not to be granted in a routine manne nner.”

11. Factual aspects of the case le case leading to the lodging of the FI the FIR have alread already been noted in para 2 of this f this order. While interpreting Sectio Section 18 of the S f the SC/ST Act, Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court in Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivr Jivraj Jain and a nd another, 2025(4) RCR (Criminal inal) 18, held as under:- “5.2 It is evident from the ab e above provision of Section 18 that that it expressly excludes the applica plicability of Section 438 of the Cod Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 973 (“hereinafter referred to as “th s “the Cr.PC”). In another words, i ds, in relation to any case involvin olving arrest of a person who i o is facing the accusation abo committing offence under thi r this Act, protection of Section 43 n 438 Cr.P.C. would not be availabl ilable. The Legislature has taken awa the benefit of anticipatory ba y bail in respect of the arrest for th or the offences alleged under the SC e SC/ST Act. The bar in Section 18 18 of ate.” the SC/ST Act would operate.” It would also be appropriate to of the riate to refer to Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, T Act, which reads as under:- “commits any offence specif pecified in the Schedule, against inst a person or property, knowing t ing that such person is a member of er of a GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 3825-2025 8- -8 Scheduled Caste or a Schedule eduled Tribe or such property belong elongs to such member, shall be pun punishable with such punishment a ent as specified under the Indian Pe n Penal Code (45 of 1860) for suc r such offences and shall also be liab liable to fine;” The offences with which the h the appellants have been charged a rged are mentioned ioned in the Schedule appended along along with The Scheduled Castes an stes and the Schedu cheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroci Atrocities) Act, 1989.

12. In view of discussion made made hereinabove, the Court is of th s of the opinion tha ion that prima facie offence under Se der Section 3(2)(va) of the Schedule heduled Caste and S e and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of on of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made o ade out from the b the bare reading of the FIR. Appella ppellants have, thus, not been able able to make out a out a case of exceptional depravity/h ravity/hardship in their favour, entitlin entitling them for th for the grant of this extra ordinary reli ry relief of pre-arrest bail.

13. The appeal being devoid of me of merit, is hereby dismissed. .2026

09.01.2026 (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) NEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document