Bimla vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 January, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bimla vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 January, 2025

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006482




                                                                        1-



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

206                              CRA-S-4048-2024(O&M)
                                 Date of decision: 16th January, 2025

Bimla
                                                                  ...Appellant
                                        Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                               ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:    Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant.

            Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Jagbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                   ***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (for short ‘the Act’) thereby challenging the order dated 29.11.2024

passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri,

whereby an application for pre-arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No. 249

dated 01.11.2024 registered under Section 3(2)(va) of the Act and Sections

115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 329(3) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Badhra, District Charkhi

Dadri, had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of

this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the basis

1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:31:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006482

2-

of complaint got lodged by complainant Bimla wife of Bishambhar Dyal

(hereinafter referred as Bimla-I) alleging that on 01.11.2024, the appellant-

Bimla (hereinafter referred as Bimla-II) along with the co-accused had

criminally trespassed into their agricultural land, damaged the growing crop,

assaulted them, criminally intimidated them by extending threats to kill and

insulted them by hurling abuses in the name of their caste. They had also

broken her tooth. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were

initiated and are underway. Apprehending her arrest, the appellant had

moved an application of pre-arrest bail. However, learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri dismissed the same by passing the impugned

order, while observing that the application was not maintainable under

Section 18-A(2) of the Act and further that the custodial interrogation of the

appellant was must.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant on the

grounds and it is argued by her counsel that the impugned order is not

sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the Court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri, ignored the fact that it

was the complainant party, who was the aggressor. A case bearing FIR

No.252 dated 02.11.2024 had been got registered by the appellant also with

regard to the same incident. Infact, the members of the complainant party

had entered inside the land in their possession and had assaulted them. The

ingredients for commission of offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the Act

were not at all attracted. The learned Court below wrongly observed that the

bar under Section 18 of the Act was attracted in this case. She is ready to

2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:31:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006482

3-

join the investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. No

recovery is to be effected from her. With these broad submissions, it is urged

that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana

assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that

the appeal does not deserve to be allowed as there are serious and specific

allegations against the appellant which attracted the provisions of Section

3(2)(va) of the Act and therefore, learned Court below did not commit any

wrong in holding that the bar of Section 18 of the Act was attracted and by

dismissing the application. It is further urged that custodial interrogation of

the appellant is must for conducting thorough investigation in the matter and

it is stressed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at

considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

6. The allegations against the appellant are that on 01.11.2024, she

formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in

prosecution of common object thereto, had criminally trespassed into the

agricultural land claimed to have been owned by the complainant party and

to have assaulted them and then criminally intimidated them. As per the

allegations, the appellant and co-accused had also insulted respondent No.2-

complainant in the name of caste. The victim is admittedly a member of

schedule caste community. The appellant has been booked for commission

of offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the Act. As per this provision, whoever,

not being a member of a schedule cast, if commits any offence specified in

3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:31:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006482

4-

the schedule against a person or property, knowing that such person is a

member of a schedule caste or schedule tribe or such property belong to such

member, shall be liable with such punishment as specified under the Indian

Penal Code for such offences. The offence under Sections 115(2), 190,

191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 329(3) and 351(2) of BNS, (which are pari materia

with Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 440, 447 and 506 of IPC) are not covered

under the schedule of the Act. Further, so far as the allegations of

intentionally insulting the victim by hurling abuses in the name of caste are

concerned, the same are general in nature, as it is nowhere mentioned in the

FIR, as to which particular accused had insulted the complainant in the name

of her caste or that the appellant had specifically stated so. As such, it is a

debatable question as to whether, any prima facie case for commission of

offence under Seciton 3(2)(va) of the Act thereby attracting the bar under

Section 18 thereof is made out or not.

7. It is well settled proposition of law that anticipatory bail can be

granted in cases registered under the provisions of the Act, if a prima facie

case for commission of an offence under the same is not made out or if it can

be shown that the allegations were false. In the given circumstances, this

Court is of the opinion that the bar under Section 18 of the Act is prima facie

not attracted. In this regard, this Court relies upon the observations made in

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another:

(2018) 6 SCC 454 and Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and others:

AIR 2020 SC 1036. Reliance can also be placed upon a recent citation of

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala and

4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:31:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006482

5-

another : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, wherein it was observed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court that a duty is cast upon the Court to determine prima facie

existence with a view to ensure that no unnecessary humiliation is caused to

the accused. The Courts should not shy away from conducting a preliminary

inquiry to determine if the narration of facts in the complaint/FIR infact

discloses the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the

Act. It was further observed that if the accusation does not disclose the

necessary ingredients of the offence on a prima facie reading, it cannot be

said to be sufficient to bring into operation the bar envisaged by Section 18

of the Act and holding otherwise would mean that even a plain accusation,

devoid of the essential ingredients required for constituting the offence,

would be enough for invoking the bar under Section 18 of the said Act. The

appellant is ready to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected

from her. Her custodial interrogation as such is not required. Therefore, this

Court is inclined to hold that the appellant deserves to be extended benefit of

pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set

aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on interim bail subject to

her joining investigation and surrendering before the Investigating

Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of fifteen days from today and

furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject

to the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the investigation and
shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
required.

5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:31:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006482

6-

(ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to any Police Officer.

(iii) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

8. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for

cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only

for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and the same shall not be

construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
16th January, 2025
Parveen Sharma

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No

2. Whether reportable : Yes / No

6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:31:44 :::