Ravinder Singh Alias Ricky v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.102 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 RAVINDER SINGH @ RICKY ...Appellant

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Sukhveer S. Killianwali, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

The present appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant in FIR No. 252 dated 23.10.2024, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar, under Sections 115(2), 351(1), 3(5), 194(1), 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Sections 323, 506, 34, 159, 325 IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the SC/ST Act, which were added later on 11.12.2025 vide G.D. No. 28.

2.

On the basis of the statement of the complainant-respondent No.2, alleging that the appellant Ravinder Singh @ Ricky had hit her parked car and thereafter attempted to run over her and her sister with his vehicle, followed by abuses, threats and assault by co-accused including use of a

baseball bat causing injuries, the present FIR No. 252 dated 23.10.2024 was registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar under Sections 115(2), 351(1), 3(5), 194(1) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During investigation, on the basis of the MLR and opinion of the doctor declaring one of the injuries to be grievous in nature, offence under Section 117(2) of BNS was added vide GD No. 28 dated 10.11.2024. Since the offences initially involved were bailable in nature, the appellant and coaccused were released on bail by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the complainant approached this Hon'ble Court by way of Criminal Writ Petition No.

CRM-M-56337-2025 seeking fair investigation and addition of appropriate provisions under the SC/ST Act, which was disposed of with directions to the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar to consider the representation. Subsequently, after recording supplementary statement and examining the material including caste certificate, offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was added in the present FIR vide GD No. 28 dated 11.12.2025, i.e. after a considerable delay of more than one year from the date of registration of the FIR.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the present case is a result of previous enmity, as the appellant along with other residents of the locality had earlier submitted complaints against the complainant party regarding their nuisance and unlawful activities, and on account thereof, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that even as per the prosecution version, the injuries attributed are simple in nature and only one injury was kept for X-ray, and therefore, no serious offence is made out against the appellant. Learned counsel submits

that the bar contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case, as there is no specific allegation of caste-based insult against the appellant, no averment that the alleged occurrence took place in public view, and the essential ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act are completely missing. It is also argued that the provisions of the SC/ST Act have been added after an inordinate delay of more than one year, which clearly shows that the same is an afterthought and has been incorporated with a mala fide intention. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs.

Union of India, 2020(2) SCC (Cri) 657 has held that where no prima facie case is made out under the SC/ST Act, the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A would not apply and the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is a law-abiding citizen having deep roots in society and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. It is also contended that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required, as the case is based upon documentary evidence and no recovery is to be effected from him. The appellant is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required.

It is thus prayed that the present petition be allowed, as continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

4.

Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the present petition and submitted that during investigation, supplementary statement of the complainant-respondent No.2 was recorded, wherein specific allegations of caste-based abuse have been

levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner used caste indicative words, namely, "Jattan Kolon Sharab Pini Sikh ke Eh Dalle Saale Chuhre Saade Naal Panga Lainde", in public view, which were heard by persons in the locality and passersby, thereby clearly attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act. It is further contended that the complainant has produced CCTV footage (pen drive) of the incident, which captures the occurrence and corroborates the version of the complainant with regard to the manner of incident as well as the abusive and caste-based words used by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the SC/ST certificate of the complainant and the supplementary statement form part of the record. On the basis of the said material, the offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act has been rightly added. It is thus contended that in view of the statutory bar contained under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the material placed on record, particularly the supplementary statement of the complainant and the CCTV footage (pen drive), it prima facie emerges that the petitioner had used caste-based abusive words against the complainant in public view. The specific utterances attributed to the petitioner, as noticed above, directly refer to the caste of the complainant and are alleged to have been made in the presence of other persons, thereby satisfying the essential ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act. At this stage, the said material cannot be disbelieved or discarded. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding absence of a prima facie case is not borne out from the record. Consequently, the judgment

relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts, as in the present case, a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out. 6.

In view of the specific allegations, the supporting material in the form of CCTV footage and supplementary statement, and the statutory bar contained under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.

7.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 8.

However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 06.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No