AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeals have filed under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989') by the appellants against the orders dtd. 2/1/2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the applications filed by them under Sec. 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 176 dtd. 25/11/2024, registered under Ss. 126(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4), 324(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sec. 3 of the Act, 1989 at Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib had been dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability of the applications.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the complainant/respondent No. 2 Ravi Singh alleging therein that on 23/11/2024, he along with other workers of a political party were marching on foot as well as on tractors to celebrate their victory. At around 06:00 PM, when the march reached near the residence of one Khushwinder Singh @ Khusha, then his brother Rupinder Singh @ Pinda started abusing him in the name of his caste and made an exhortation to teach him and his companions a lesson for marching in front of their house. He had already called 20-25 persons to quarrel with the complainant party. Since Rupinder Singh @ Pinda was the resident of the same village as of the complainant, he was aware of the fact that the complainant belonged to SC community. Thereafter, Khushwinder Singh @ Khusha Singh, appellant Sarabjeet Singh, appellant Amarbir Singh, Himmat Singh, Jaswinder Singh @ Bittu Singh, Jaspreet Singh, appellant Babbu Singh, Sikhchain Singh, appellant Avtar, appellant Jagsir, Gurpreet Singh @ Minni along with 10 unidentified persons, armed with weapons like baseball bats, sticks and steel pipes, opened an assault and extended beatings to the complainant on his head, lower arm and elbow. The accused persons also damaged their vehicles. Thereafter, Vakil Singh, Gurnam Singh, Tarsem Singh, Malkit Singh @ Pillu Singh and Jagdev Singh @ Gora Singh rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused persons and in that process they too sustained injuries. All the accused persons ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons while shouting expletives at them. The injured persons were taken to hospital for medical treatment. The complainant prayed for taking legal action against the culprits. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the appellants had moved applications for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib but the same had been dismissed by passing the impugned orders while observing that that the applications were not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 18-A of the Act, 1989. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeals.

(3.) It is argued by learned senior counsel for the appellants that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be set aside as the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. A perusal of the contents of the FIR would show that no injury has been attributed to either of the appellants herein. The complainant is politically motivated and due to party fraction in the village, he has falsely implicated the appellants in this case. So far as the allegations regarding making derogatory remarks on the caste of the complainant are concerned, it is apparent from a perusal of the FIR that there are no such allegations against the present appellants and it is only co-accused Rupinder Singh @ Pinda against whom such allegations have been levelled by the complainant. Even otherwise, offence under Sec. 3 of the Act, 1989 was added by the police after a period of 10 days from lodging the present FIR, which shows that the aforesaid offence had been added due to political pressure exerted by the complainant. It is argued that vague and general allegations of sweeping nature have been levelled. The appellants are ready to join the investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. The allegations do not show that the appellants had insulted/abused the complainant in the name of his caste. The provisions of the Act, 1989 have not been attracted against them even prima facie and learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly observed that the applications for grant of anticipatory bail were not maintainable. With these broad submissions, it is argued that the present appeals deserve to be accepted and the appellants deserve to be given benefit of pre-arrest bail.