Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chetna Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28102
1 CRA-9858-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9858 of 2025
CHETNA SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devansh Mishra, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Mohit Shivhare, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.23356/2025, which is an application for taking
documents on record.
Documents may be relevant for proper adjudication of the matter,
therefore, I.A. No.23356/2025 is allowed and documents are taken on record.
Also heard on I.A. Nos.21508/2025 and 23357/2025, which are
applications for exemption from filing affidavit.
In view of the reasons assigned in the applications, I.A.
Nos.21508/2025 and 23357/2025 are allowed and appellant is exempted
from filing the affidavit.
Heard both the parties finally.
This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in
short "the Act, 1989") against the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by Special
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28102
2 CRA-9858-2025
Judge (Atrocities Act), Guna, rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the
appellants.
The appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime
No.289/2025 registered at Police Station - Raghogarh (M.P.) for commission
of offence punishable under Sections 351(3), 115(2), 296, 3(5) of BNS and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989.
Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 8.9.2025,
complainant Rajkumari Bai with Rakhi Kori went to the shop of Sanjay
Sahu. Sanjay Sahu and Chetna Sahu abused them in filthy language and
thereafter committed marpeet with her, due to which complainants,
Rahul and Jeevan sustained injuries. They also threatened the
complainant and her family for life. Accordingly, offence has been
registered.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellants are
innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the matter. They did not
abuse the complainant any caste related word, therefore, offence under
Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Act is not made out in the instant matter.
FIR is 10 days belated. Victim sustained only simple injuries. Victim persons
damaged the appellants property and they were the aggressor. Hence, he
prays that the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Counsel for appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sidhan @ Sidharathan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. passed
in SLP(Crl.) No.11154/2025 order dated 31.10.2025.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28102
3 CRA-9858-2025
Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well opposes the criminal
appeal and prays for its rejection by submitting that under provisions of
Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, anticipatory bail is prohibited in this matter. Both the parties
are known to each other and other accused also. Therefore, appellants are not
entitled for anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking
note of the fact that parties are known to each other and other accused also,
although a cross-case has been registered in the instant matter but looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to allow
this criminal appeal for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, it is rejected.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
"R"
