Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashendra Raja Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 June, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11787
1 CRA-5448-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5448 of 2025
ASHENDRA RAJA BUNDELA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Indra Singh Ashthana - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri YPS Tomar - Panel Lawyer for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5365 of 2025
KALYAN SINGH BUNDELA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Indra Singh Ashthana - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri YPS Tomar - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The present appeals under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989/438 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.05.2025
passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), District Datia passed in case
No.B.A/527/2025 whereby bail application of the appellants filed under
Section 482 of the BNSS has been rejected.
2. Appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11787
2 CRA-5448-2025
No.134/2025 registered at P.S. Badouni, District Datia for the offences
punishable under Section 296, 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S.S. and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. As per prosecution case, complainant Kranti Bai, wife of Kamal
Kishore Parihar, had lodged a report to the effect that on May 14, 2025,
around 5:00 PM, in Lamkana Village, the accused Shersingh Bundela
allegedly damaged the platform in front of her house while driving a tractor,
to which, when a complaint was made, Shersingh, Gajendra, Kalyansingh,
and Ashendra all arrived there and hurled caste based abuses to her. The
complainant's son, Mohit, witnessed the incident. The accused persons then
threatened to kill her. On the basis of the said complaint, the present case
was registered against the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are
innocent and they have not committed any offence and there was no overt act
in the dispute rather it is only mere presence. It is further submitted that there
are no ingredients of the Atrocities Act in the matter and the complainant
being a member of SC/ST Community is only by chance and neither the
incident occurred on account of caste and community of the complainant nor
it was intended to humiliate the complainant on account of his caste and
community. Therefore, prima facie no ingredients are made out of the
Atrocities Act. Thus, benefit of anticipatory bail be granted by allowing the
appeals and setting aside the order passed by trial Court. Relying upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan vs.
UOI reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 ; learned counsel contended that if prima
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11787
3 CRA-5448-2025
facie case are made out, provisions of Section 18 and 18A of SC/ST Act
regarding bar in granting anticipatory bail would not apply. It is further
submitted that the appellants are aged around 32, 25 and 62 years respetively
and permanent resident of District Datia (M.P.). There is no possibility of
their absconsion or tempering with the evidence. Jail incarceration of the
appellants is causing hardship to them and their family. Trial will take its
own time. The appellants are ready and willing to abide by any condition
which may be imposed by this Court in case of grant of bail. On the basis of
the above, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for grant of present
appeals.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State while
supporting the impugned order prayed for rejection of the present appeals.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record as well the case
diary.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P rathvi Raj Chauhan Vs.
Union of India and Others (supra) has held that provisions of Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. are not absolutely bar and if the complainant does not make out a
prima facie case for applicability of provisions of Act of 1989, then the bar
as per Sections 18 and 18 (A) (i) of the Atrocities Act would not be attracted.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting
on merits of the case and prima facie, no ingredients of offence of atrocities
act seems to be attracted against the present applicant, which is subject to
evidence brought on record in this regard. In the considered opinion of this
Court, preset appeals deserve to be allowed and are hereby allowed and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11787
4 CRA-5448-2025
order passed by the trial Court dated 27.05.2025 is set aside. It is directed
that in the event of arrest, appellants be released on bail on each of them
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only)
with one 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.
8. Appeals stand allowed and disposed of finally.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
V. JUDGE
pwn*
