CRA-S/2315/2026 of MOHIT ALIAS SARPANCH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 27 July 2026

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) after being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide which regular bail of the appellant stood dismissed in the present FIR No. 0023 dated 19.02.2026 registered at Police Station City Safidon, Dist. Jind under Sections 351(2), 191(3), 190, 115, 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponds to Sections 506, 148, 149, 321 and 307 of IPC, 1860) and Section 25(1)(b) of Arms Act, 1959, whereas added later on Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)A of SC/ST Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, along with the petitioner, brutally assaulted the complainant, and some of them even urinated on his face. It is further alleged that the petitioner recorded a video of the occurrence and thereafter circulated the same, thereby making it viral. In RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh the said video, at least three accused persons can be seen urinating on the face of the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation of urinating on the face of the complainant is solely attributed to the main accused, namely, Arun @ Shikari, and no such allegation has been levelled against the present appellant. He further submits that the appellant was neither involved in the alleged act of urinating upon the complainant nor in making the video viral on social media. No specific role has been attributed to the appellant with regard to the injuries allegedly inflicted upon the complainant. He further submits that the appellant has been in custody since 21.02.2026 and prays for grant of regular bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. DAG,Haryana.accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the appellant is in custody for the last 05 months and 05 days and is not involved in any other case.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed considering the fact that the appellant is in custody for the last 05 months and 05 days and is not involved in any other case. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. Therefore, the RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Jind is hereby set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

9. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the appellant is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 27.07.2026

JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh