Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1787
1 CRA-770-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 770 of 2025
KULDEEP
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.K.Vyas, Senior Counsel with Shri Gaurav Kumar Verma,
counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, Public Prosecutor for State.
Shr Ashish Gupta, counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant.
ORDER
This is first application for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the
appellant Kuldeep S/o Mukesh Mahajan in the form of Criminal Appeal
under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 assailing the order dated 11.01.2025
passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act district Barwani whereby his application
under section 482 BNSS, 2023 has been dismissed.
2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No. 0397/2024 registered at P.S. Thikri, district Barwani for the offence
punishable under sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 117(2) of BNS and section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for appellant submits that appellant has not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1787
2 CRA-770-2025
committed any offence. Actually he is the victim and this FIR has been
lodged as a counter blast to his FIR bearing crime NO. 371/2024 under
sections 296, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 117(2) and
109 of BNS. Counsel further submits that neither in the FIR nor in the earlier
statement recorded by the police the allegation of committing offence under
various sections of SC & ST Act have been alleged but as after though story
in the statement these sections have been added just to keep the appellant
behind the bars. Learned counsel further inviting attention of this Court
towards the judgment of Civil Judge class-I, Anjad in RCS No.13-A/2016
submits that there is previous enmity between the appellant and complainant
with regard to land and therefore, this FIR has been lodged against him.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that complainant is 'Pardi'
and not Balai, therefore there is no question of calling names as Balai to the
complainant. Counsel has invited attentions towards the caste certificate of
the appellant alleging that in district Barwani, Pardi caste has not been
notified in the Scheduled Caste community, therefore, bar under section 18
of the SC & St Act does not come in the way in granting anticipatory bail to
the appellant. To boldster his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance
on the judgment in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and
anothers, (2020) 4 SCC 727. On these contentions, learned counsel prays for
allowing the appeal.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the objector opposed the
prayer submitting that earlier district Barwani was part of district Khargone.
In the territorial jurisdiction of district Khargone, 'Pardi' has been notified as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1787
3 CRA-770-2025
Scheduled Caste. They have also invited attention of this Court towards the
FIR wherein in the last view lines allegation with regard of commission of
offence under SC & ST Act have been mentioned. Learned counsel further
submits that in the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded under section
180 of BNSS, clear allegation of committing offence under various sections
of SC & ST Act have been mentioned.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, looking to the bar as
contained under section 18 of SC & ST Act, no case for grant of anticipatory
bail is made out and the judgment cited by the Senior Counsel for appellant is
not helpful having distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of peculiar
case.
In view of foregoing, the Cr.Appeal stands dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
MK
