Shanno Bee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 7849 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shanno Bee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2025

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10040




                                                           1                            CRA-3434-2025
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                 ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2025
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3434 of 2025
                                                 SHANNO BEE
                                                    Versus
                                   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                 Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the
                           respondent/State.
                                 Shri Prabhanshu Kamal, learned counsel for the Objector.

                                                               ORDER

This first application for grant of bail in the form of criminal appeal under Section 14 (A) 2 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the Act) has been filed assailing order dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned

Special Judge [SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Indore, District Shajapur (MP), whereby application under 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for grant of anticipatory bail filed on behalf of appellant / accused has been dismissed.

2. Appellant is apprehending arrest in connection with F.I.R.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10040

2 CRA-3434-2025 bearing Crime No.55 of 2025 registered at Police Station Maksi, District Shajapur (MP) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 62(1)(m), 296, 351(3), 3/5 of BNS, 2023, Sections 3(1)(w-i) and 3(2)(v-

a) of the Act and Section 3 and 5 of M.P.Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. She has not committed any offence relating to SC/ST Act. To buttress his submission he has invited attention of this Court towards the documents, statements of witnesses and complaint filed by the complainant. He further submits that this is a case where complainant herself has harassed the members of the family and as a counter blast this FIR has been filed against the

appellant. The bar under Section 18 of the Act is not applicable. There is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with evidence. She will cooperate with the investigation, therefore, it is prayed that appeal be allowed and appellant may be released on bail. To bolster his submissions he has relied on paras 35, 50 and 51 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 2024 SCC Online 2249.

4. Learned counsel for the Objector has opposed the prayer by referring to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023 and submits that there are direct allegations against the applicant which reveals that case under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. Investigation is still going on therefore, prays for dismissal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10040

3 CRA-3434-2025 of the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer on the ground that serious allegations are levelled against the appellant and other co-accused person who has allegedly sexually assaulted the complainant, sample of DNA has been taken of which report is still awaited, investigation is still going on therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal as bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act comes into play.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. In view of the factual backdrop, looking to the allegations, evidence collected so far, this Court is not inclined to allow this appeal and release the appellant on anticipatory bail. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed on merits as well as against the provisions under Section 18 of the Act and presumption under Section 8(C) of SC/ST Act.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

RJ