Madhya Pradesh High Court
Siyasharan Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16975
1 CRA-7644-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7644 of 2025
SIYASHARAN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Gatwar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vikram Pippal Penal - learned PL for the respondent/State.
Shri Arshad Ali M. Haque - learned counsel for the respondent
[COMP].
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.17335 of 2025 under section 338(2) of BNSS for
assisting PL in the matter.
For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed and Shri
Arshad Ali M.Haque Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist PL
in the matter.
This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in
short "Act, 1989") against the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by Special
Judge (Atrocities Act), Datia rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the
appellants.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16975
2 CRA-7644-2025
The appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime
No.80/2025 registered at Police Station - Pandokhar District Datia (M.P.) for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),
296, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3(1) (da) (dha) and 3(2)(v-
a) of the Act, 1989.
Prosecution story, in short, is that on 27.05.2025 at about 10 PM when
complainant Vanmali along with Neeraj and Chaturbhuj was going to the
field on a motorcycle, accused Ankit Yadav and Amit Yadav obstructed their
way near tanki and abused them in filthy language using caste related words
and when they tried to restrain them, Ankit assaulted Neeraj with stick.
When they raised alarm, Ajad Dohre and Ravindra Dohre came and Chhote
Yadav, Ankit Yadav, Vishal Yadav and Ramnaresh Yadve came and
committed marpeet of Ravindra and Ajad Dohre. When Rajeshwari Dohre,
Meena, Keshkali and Kunwar tried to save them, accused persons also
committed marpeet with them. Complainant Vanmali lodged FIR at Police
Station District Pandokhar Distt. Datia. Accordingly, the offence has been
registered.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are
innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the matter. When the
quarrel started, appellants were not present on the spot. After sometime, they
came on the spot but they did not abuse the complainant in filthy language or
caste related word. Therefore, no offence is made out against them for
offence under the Act of 1989. Hence, he prays that the appellant may be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16975
3 CRA-7644-2025
enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Counsel for the appellant places reliance of the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 2018 SC 1498.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel
for the complainant oppose the criminal appeal and prays for its rejection by
submitting that victim sustained several injuries in the incident and as per the
bar created under section 18 of the Act of 1989, an anticipatory bail is
prohibited.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking
note of the fact that the appellants along with co-accused abused complainant
and victim filthily using caste related words and also committed marpeet
with them, due to which, they sustained injuries and as per provision of
Section 18 of the Act, 1989, anticipatory bail is barred in offence under Act,
1989, therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow this appeal.
Accordingly, this criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
