***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. –

1. The appeal impugns order dated 05.08.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which anticipatory bail application of the appellant in FIR No. 106 dated 10.05.2026, under Sections 127, 126, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5), 140(3), 109, 303(2), 238 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 3(1)(D)(R) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 25 Arms Act, Police Station Urban Estate, Patiala, was dismissed.

2. On 13.08.2026, following order was passed:-

“……..

2. Complainant Dr. Ramandeep Singh, a Specialist at Government Hospital, Derabassi reported to the police that on 10.05.2026 at about 12.50 PM, he was present in the market with his friend Gurbhagat Singh Virk in his Thar car. They parked their car near Subway showroom. In the meanwhile, another black Thar car came and stopped behind them. Three-four young boys surrounded his friend’s car and one of them hit the front window of the car with baseball bat. The remaining unknown youth started opening doors of their car. When he opened the side door, he was pulled out by force and taken towards their vehicle. He tried to flee, whereafter 2-3 of them came running after him, caught him and thrashed him up. Then, they forcibly took him in their Thar vehicle to Turna Palace side. He identified one of the person in the vehicle as Jaskaran Singh Dhaliwal, resident of Balpur Patti, village Dhakla, who took out a black revolver, pointed it at his head saying that he would make a video of him and he should do as he said. He became enraged and hit the back of his head and below his eye with butt of revolver. When they reached the farm, he was again thrashed with sticks. During this time, the black T-shirt he was wearing, tore, they forcibly stripped him naked and made a video of him. Then Jaskaran Singh Dhaliwal took out a yellow shirt from his car and gave it to him, along with water to drink. Jaskaran Singh then called his friend and apologized for the mistake. Then, he put him in the car and dropped him back. While going, he threatened to kill him, if he disclosed the incident to anyone. Complainant further stated that 05 months ago, Jaskaran Singh Dhaliwal was drunk and was molesting a lady doctor at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and they stopped him. They had a heated debate but the matter was compromised in Rajinder Chowki. Jaskaran Singh Dhaliwal attacked him on account of the previous incident and also took off his Apple watch.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially, the police did not invoke Section 3(1)(D)(R) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 27 of Arms Act, which were invoked subsequently. It is argued that appellant was not named in the FIR and had been falsely implicated on fake allegations. No specific role was assigned to him nor any injury was attributed to him. The allegations in the FIR did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act and the offence was added on 09.07.2026, one day prior to listing of the application for anticipatory bail, by the Investigating Agency, only to prevent the appellant from availing legal remedy. It was argued that no offence under Section 3(1)(D)(R) of SC/ST Act was made out against the appellant as there was nothing in the FIR to suggest that appellant was aware of caste of the complainant from which the requisite intent could be gathered. It was a simple case of assault and appellant, who was ready and willing to join investigation, deserved to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by setting aside order dated 05.08.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

4. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant  has  vehemently  opposed  the  prayer  for anticipatory bail referring to the contents of the FIR and provisions of Section 3(1)(D)(R) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to submit that appellant and co-accused stripped the complainant naked, made a video of him and in view of specific bar envisaged under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, benefit of anticipatory bail could not be granted.

5. As per law settled in Prathvi Raj Chauhan's case (supra) and the Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 8 SCC 795, Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can only be invoked if prima-facie case is established.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr” 2024 SCC Online SC 2249 has observed as under:-

“As a sequitur, if the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the allegations levelled in the complaint or FIR, then in such circumstances, as per the consistent exposition by various decisions of this Court, the bar of Section 18 would not apply and the courts would not be absolutely precluded from granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons”.

7. It was further observed that:-

“The duty to determine prima facie existence of the case is cast upon the courts 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 in fact discloses the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the Act, 1989. It is expected of the courts to apply their judicial mind to determine whether the allegations levelled in the complaint, on a plain reading, satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. Such application of judicial mind should be independent and without being influenced by the provisions figuring in the complaint/FIR. The aforesaid role of the course assumes even more importance when a prima facie finding on the case has the effect of precluding the accused person from seeking anticipatory bail, which is an important concomitant of personal liberty of the individual”.

8. Thus, an accusation which does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence on a prima facie reading cannot be said to be sufficient to bring into operation the bar envisaged by Section 18 of the Act, 1989.

9. It has been further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above pronouncement that all insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that he belongs to such community, the mischief of Section 3(1) of the 1989 Act would not be attracted. Not every insult or intimidation of a member of SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste based humiliation unless it was the intention of the accused to subject the concerned person to caste based humiliation.

10. It deserves notice that appellant was initially allowed anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 20.05.2026. At that time offence under Sections 109, 303(2), 238, 140(3), 3(5) BNS, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 3(1)(D)(R) of SC/ST Act were not invoked. The offence under Section 3(1)(D)(R) of the SC/ST Act was added in the FIR vide DDR No. 54 dated 09.07.2026.

11. Intention is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and has to be gathered from the first report to the police. Appellant is not named in the FIR. Except for one co-accused, Jaskaran Singh Dhaliwal, no other assailant has been named. There is nothing in the first report to the police to suggest even remotely that the appellant was aware that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The only acquaintance complainant alleges is with Jaskaran Singh Dhaliwal and that too, was not personal in nature but on account of a previous incident relating to a lady doctor at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, which led to heated argument. If the assailants were not aware of the caste of complainant, it would be difficult to hold that the offence under Section 3(D)(E) and (R) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would be made out. The intention to insult and humiliate on the basis of caste would thus, be missing.

12. Antecedents of the appellant are clean and no definite role has been attributed to him in the FIR, he is not even named. Injuries suffered by complainant/respondent No. 2 are simple in nature. Considering the nature and substances of allegations against the appellant, all relevant facts and circumstances and the fact that appellant is ready and willing to join investigation, the appellant is ordered to be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Appellant shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

13. List on 16.09.2026.”

3. On instructions from ASI Bhupinder Singh, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that appellant has joined investigation, however, his custodial interrogation was required for recovery of Apple watch and the video which he prepared.

4. There is nothing in the FIR to suggest that it was the appellant who took the Apple watch of the complainant or that it was he who made the video. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 13.08.2026, appellant has joined investigation. Considering all relevant facts and circumstances, order dated 13.08.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the appellant, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

5. The appeal against order dated 05.08.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, is allowed.

6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Appeal allowed.

********