MOHIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Instant Appeal has been filed under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act') by the appellant, thereby challenging order dtd. 18/11/2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, in case arising out of FIR No.306, dtd. 25/9/2025, registered under Ss. 115(2), 126(2), 140(3), 190, 191(3), 351(3), 117(2) of the BNS and Ss. 3(2) (va), 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station City Kaithal, whereby an application filed by the appellant for grant of regular bail was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint submitted by complainant - Mohit Kumar, alleging that on the night of 25/9/2025, he was going towards his house when 4-5 youths, who came riding on 02 motorbikes, intercepted him and started asking him about his whereabouts. On their asking, he disclosed that he belonged to SC community and after hearing so, all of them at once opened an attack upon him with their respective weapons, which they were carrying with them. They abducted him along with his bike and took him to a school near Chandana Gate, where one youth was found present. They asked that youth to identify the complainant but when he responded by saying that the complainant was not the person, who had assaulted him, they again opened an attack upon him and threatened him to flee from that place. While the complainant was crossing the street those youths again came on their motorbikes towards him and by calling him with the name of "Chamar dedh ke beej, tu dubara se mil gya" and thereafter again assaulted him with rods, lathis and dandas etc. the complainant rushed for his rescue but identified one of them as Krishan. He was admitted in hospital and had sustained several injuries. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, accused Krishan was arrested. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Respondent No.2/complainant recorded his supplementary statement on 8/10/2025 on the basis of which, the present appellant along with co-accused Sagar @ Gabbar and Rahul were nominated. Other accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands concluded.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. No specific role has been attributed to him. The ingredients for commission of the offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act are not applicable qua him. He was named by the complainant only after disclosure statement of the co-accused Krishan which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. The complainant himself never identified the appellant. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. He has clean antecedents. While passing the impugned order, the trial Court did not take all these points into consideration. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the appeal deserves to be accepted and he deserves to be released on bail.