Alka@Teenu Wife Of Mohan Lal v. State Of Haryana And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.

Date of Decision: 24.04.2026 ...Appellant

Versus

....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sauhard S. Hooda, Advocate with Mr. Harsh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

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

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused Alka. The same has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, assailing the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in bail application, whereby the prayer of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail was declined. By way of filing the present appeal, the appellant seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 29 dated 04.02.2026, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Hisar, District Hisar, Haryana, under Sections 115, 118(1), 126 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (with Section 118(2) BNS added later on).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, who is stated to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community, alleged that the present accused inflicted scissor blows on her mouth and head, which are vital parts of the body. As per the medico-legal report, the injured received three injuries i.e. incised wounds on her lips, chin and head. Injury No.1 pertains to the extraction of a tooth and the same has been declared grievous in nature as per medical opinion, whereas injuries No.2 and 3 have been declared simple in nature.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution has failed to make out any case under the provisions of the SC/ST Act and there is not even an iota of evidence to show that any caste-based abusive words were used by the petitioner. It is further argued that the CCTV footage shows that the complainant was moving casually after the alleged incident, which indicates that she had not sustained any serious injury. It is submitted that Section 326 IPC has been added only on the ground that a tooth was allegedly extracted by a scissor blow; however, the said tooth was never taken into possession by the investigating agency. The remaining injuries are simple in nature. The petitioner is stated to be ready and willing to join the investigation and, therefore, she deserves to be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, has opposed the present bail application and submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. However, it is not denied that the offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out. It is further submitted that the remaining allegations stand established on record

inasmuch as the doctor has opined that injury No.1, relating to extraction of tooth, is grievous in nature, thereby attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC, which is a serious offence. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that although the allegations under the SC/ST Act were not pressed during the course of arguments, either by the State or by the complainant, the medical record clearly reflects that one of the injuries, namely extraction of tooth by use of scissors, has been declared grievous in nature and the same is specifically attributed to the petitioner. The nature and gravity of the offence, particularly under Section 326 IPC, cannot be overlooked at this stage.

6.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the manner in which the injury has been inflicted on a vital part of the body, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may also be required for a fair investigation.

7.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 8.

However, it is clarified that 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) 24.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No