Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram Badole vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10600
1 MCRC-16276-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16276 of 2025
SHRIRAM BADOLE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Mitesh Jain, learned counsel for the Objector.
ORDER
This first bail application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed
by the applicant Shriram Badole S/o Rajaram Badole for grant of
anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.203/2025 registered at Police Station Badwani, District Badwani (M.P.)
for commission of offences under Sections 69, 351(3) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. As per prosecution case, the applicant has sexually abused the
victim on 09.10.2024. Accordingly, FIR was registered on 23.03.2025
against him.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10600
2 MCRC-16276-2025
and the victim has falsely implicated him in the crime to extort money. FIR
was filed by delay of almost six months. He further invites attention of this
Court to one of the judgment filed as Annexure A-3 passed by III Additional
Sessions Judge, Badwani in S.T.No.49/2023 dated 06.12.2023, which was
registered at the instance of the complainant, wherein on merit after
appreciating the evidence available on record, the accused therein has been
acquitted. Relying on the this document, he submits that victim is in a habit
of lodging false FIR against other persons and when she gets money as
asked, she compromise the matter. He further submits that applicant is a
school teacher and has not committed any offence. Sufficient evidence is not
available on record to establish the complicity of the accused with the
alleged crime. There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with
evidence. He will cooperate with the investigation. On these contentions,
learned counsel prays for allowing the application for grant of anticipatory
bail.
4. Learned counsel for the Objector though opposed the prayer but
fairly admits that the aforesaid case was registered at the instance of the same
complainant. He further submits that in this case, section of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act should have been invoked, as victim belongs
to SC community, she is a divorcee and has been sexually assaulted by the
applicant, looking to the bar under Section 18 of the Act, anticipatory bail
cannot be granted to the applicant and prays for dismissal of the application.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently
opposed the prayer on the similar grounds as raised on behalf of the Objector
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10600
3 MCRC-16276-2025
and prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.
6. In reply learned counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment
dated 23.08.2024 of the Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of
Kerala and another Cr.A.No.2622/2024 and submits that if case has not been
registered under SC/ST Act, bar under Section 18 of the Act is not
applicable. Even otherwise, it is a false case and no case is made out for
invoking offence under the SC/ST Act.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, looking to the allegations and
evidence in entirety collected in support of the allegations levelled against
the applicant, this Court is inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the
applicant. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the
bail application is allowed.
9. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released
on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the officer making arrest/Trial Court, for compliance with the
following conditions:
(i) Applicant shall make himself available for investigation as may be
directed by the Investigation Officer;
(ii) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence in
future;
(iii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10600
4 MCRC-16276-2025
dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the
police officer;
(iv) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with
the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness; and
(v) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of
provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C/346 of the BNSS regarding examination
of witnesses in attendance.
10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in
case of bail jump and / or breach of any of the conditions of bail, this order
will come to an end and applicant will be liable to be arrested by the
concerned authorities.
11. The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the
personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If
any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained
the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
12. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
