Delay, Vague Allegations & No ‘Public View’: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Case
Case Name: Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 12 February 2026
Citation: CRA-S-141-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would not apply where a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act is not made out from a bare reading of the FIR. The Court held that vague and omnibus allegations, absence of specific caste-based words, lack of assertion that the alleged insult occurred “in public view,” and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR are relevant factors while considering anticipatory bail.
Summary: The appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act was filed against the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the Special Court, Kapurthala, dismissing the appellant’s anticipatory bail application in FIR No.106 dated 27.12.2025 registered under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala.
As per the prosecution, the complainants, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, alleged that the appellant, a co-villager whose land adjoins theirs, used abusive and caste-based language against them and their children. The alleged occurrence was stated to have taken place on 16.11.2025, whereas the FIR was registered on 27.12.2025.
The appellant contended that the allegations were false and motivated by prior land disputes. It was argued that the FIR did not reproduce the specific caste-based words allegedly uttered, nor did it clearly state that such remarks were made in “any place within public view,” which is an essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(s). It was further submitted that there was an unexplained delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR.
The State opposed the appeal, contending that the allegations were specific and attracted the provisions of the SC/ST Act, and that in view of Section 18 of the Act, anticipatory bail was barred.
The High Court examined the scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act in light of the Supreme Court decision in Prathvi Raj v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1036, which held that the bar on anticipatory bail would not operate where no prima facie case under the Act is made out. The Court also relied upon its own decision in Lalit @ Lalli v. State of Haryana (CRA-S-3280 of 2023), observing that delay in lodging the FIR and lack of prima facie material are relevant considerations.
On perusal of the FIR, the Court found that the allegations were general in nature and did not specify the exact caste-based words allegedly used on the date of occurrence. There was no clear assertion that the remarks were made in public view. The Court further noted the unexplained delay of more than one month in registration of the FIR.
Holding that the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(s) were not prima facie satisfied and that custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary, the Court concluded that the bar under Section 18 of the Act would not operate in the present case.
Decision: The appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated 03.01.2026 was set aside. The appellant was granted anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., including joining investigation and not tampering with evidence.