Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11711
1 CRA-5155-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 6 th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5155 of 2025
DHARMENDRA KUMAR VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divakar Vyas, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya, Public Prosecutor for State.
Shri Kapil Singhal, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the SC/ST
Act") filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by
Special Judge (SC & ST Act) Vidisha whereby the anticipatory bail
application under Section 482 of BNSS has been rejected.
The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.837/2025 for the offences punishable under sections 118(1), 296, 351(2),
3(5), 109 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
Act registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Vidisha.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking through this Court to
the prosecution version submits that as per prosecution, there was some
property dispute between co-accused Rajendra Lodhi@ Sonu and Naveen
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11711
2 CRA-5155-2025
Saxena and his friends. As per prosecution story, Naveen Saxena went to talk
to Rajendra in office of Iffco Tokio Insurance and while going there, he took
present appellant Khemchand along with him. There some altercation took
place between Naveen Saxena and his associates on the one side and
Rajendra@ Sonu on the other side. It is also contended that present applicant
Dharmendra has no role in the dispute. He is an Advocate. It is further
contended that there is allegation of assault on Khemchand Ahirwar by
Rajendra @ Sonu and in the cross case at crime No.838/24 Khemchand
alleged to have assaulted Raju@Rajendra with knife. Present appellant has
no role in the present matter. He neither assaulted nor knew about the caste
of injured person namely Khemchand Ahirwar. Therefore, ingredients of
atrocities Act being made out against the present applicant are prima facie
not attracted. Therefore, benefit of anticipatory bail be granted by allowing
the appeal and setting aside the order passed by trial Court. Reliance is
placed on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi raj
Chauhan Vs. Union of India & Others, 2020 (4) SCC 727.
Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the appeal and
prayed for its rejection while learned counsel for complainant has stated that
complainant has no objection if present applicant is granted benefit of
anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the arguments
advanced by them.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without
commenting on merits of the case and prima facie, no ingredients of offence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11711
3 CRA-5155-2025
of atrocities act seems to be attracted against the present applicant. In the
considered opinion of this Court, preset appeal deserves to be allowed and is
hereby allowed and the order passed by the trial Court dated 17.5.2025 is set
aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest, appellant be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand
Only) with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer for his appearance before the trial
Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-
section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
Rohit
