P&H High Court Grants Bail | Question Raised on Applicability of SC/ST Act Where Accused Himself Belongs to Deprived Scheduled Caste
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Manisha Batra, has allowed an appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, which had earlier dismissed a regular bail application. The Court directed the release of the appellant on bail, noting that his continued incarceration would not serve any useful purpose and that the specific allegations against him did not justify prolonged custody. The judgment, reserved on 11 August 2025 and pronounced on 20 August 2025, ordered the appellant’s release on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or competent magistrate.
The case originated from an incident on 7 April 2024 when the complainant, identified as respondent No.2 in the proceedings, was allegedly attacked in the labour room of his saw mill factory. According to the prosecution, the appellant, accompanied by co-accused and two to three unidentified individuals, assaulted the complainant with sticks, rods, and iron pipes. The complainant attempted to escape but was struck with a brick, causing him to fall, after which further injuries were allegedly inflicted. It was alleged that during the assault, the complainant, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste, was insulted with caste-based abuses and threatened with death. A fellow worker, Satpal, was also injured in the attack.
Following the statement of the complainant, an FIR No.207 dated 10 April 2024 was registered at Police Station Hansi City, District Hansi, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 452, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. During the investigation, several co-accused, including Suraj, Sahil, and Chirag, were arrested. A juvenile in conflict with law was also apprehended. Disclosure statements were recorded, and CCTV footage allegedly capturing the incident was collected. The appellant was arrested on 5 June 2025 and is said to have made a disclosure statement and demarcated the place of incident. The investigation concluded with the filing of a challan, after which the appellant sought bail before the trial court. The application was rejected on 12 June 2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.
In the present appeal before the High Court, counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court had overlooked material aspects. It was contended that there was an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR. The appellant’s counsel further submitted that the appellant himself belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, supported by a caste certificate issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, marked as Annexure P-2. Therefore, the provisions of the SC/ST Act, according to the defence, could not be attracted against him. It was also argued that no specific injury had been attributed to the appellant and that the CCTV footage did not depict him assaulting the complainant. The appellant’s counsel asserted that continued incarceration would serve no purpose, the trial would take considerable time, and there was no likelihood of the complainant being intimidated since he had already been examined.
On the other hand, the State opposed the bail. The learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, argued that the appellant, acting in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, had voluntarily caused both simple and grievous injuries to the complainant by trespassing into his premises, abusing him in casteist terms, and intimidating him. The prosecution maintained that the allegations were serious and the impugned order rejecting bail was justified.
The Court noted that the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly allegedly responsible for inflicting injuries on the complainant. However, Annexure P-2 demonstrated that the appellant belonged to Khatik caste, declared as a Deprived Scheduled Caste by the Government of Haryana. The Court recorded that the appellant had been in custody since 5 June 2025, more than two months at the time of decision. Importantly, no specific injury had been attributed to him, nor was he alleged to have carried any weapon during the occurrence. The offences under the IPC with which he was charged were triable by a Magistrate. The Court also took note of the fact that the appellant was arrested 425 days after the FIR registration and that the allegations of caste-based abuse in the FIR were not specifically attributed to him.
The Court, after considering submissions from both sides, recorded its reasoning in detail. Justice Manisha Batra stated: "The appellant is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and is alleged to have caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant." The Court acknowledged the caste certificate filed by the appellant and observed: "He has placed on record Annexure P-2 copy of certificate issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hisar showing that he belongs to Khatik caste that has been declared as Deprived Scheduled Caste by the Government of Haryana."
The Court observed the duration of custody: "The appellant is in custody since 05.06.2025." On the attribution of injuries, the Court stated: "No specific injury has been attributed to him. Neither any specific weapon was alleged to be carried by him at the time of occurrence." The Court further examined the nature of the offences and noted: "The offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code for which the appellant has been booked, are triable by Magistrate."
Addressing the delay in arrest, the Court recorded: "He was arrested after a gap of 425 days after registration of FIR." With regard to caste-based allegations, the Court stated: "A perusal of the contents of FIR reveals that the allegation that the victim was called by the name of his caste have not been specifically attributed to him." The Court then posed the issue of applicability of the SC/ST Act, observing: "Even otherwise, he is falling under Deprived Scheduled Caste category and as such, it is to be considered as to whether the provisions of SC/ST Act are applicable against him or not?"
Summarising its findings, the Court remarked: "Keeping in view the period of incarceration of the appellant, the nature of attributions made to him and the above discussed facts as well as in the peculiar circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in custody any more."
In its concluding part, the Court issued a clear directive. Justice Manisha Batra held: "Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned." The Court clarified that this decision was reached without commenting on the merits of the case but in light of the appellant’s incarceration, lack of specific attribution, and other circumstances.
Thus, the appellate court directed that the appellant be enlarged on bail, conditional upon the fulfilment of bond requirements before the appropriate authority.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Harsh Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Ms. Himani Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: Rahul Bundela @ Rahul v. State of Haryana and another
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:108499
Case Number: CRA-S No.2208 of 2025
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
