Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Chandra Deep Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
1 CRA-10009-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 13th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10009 of 2025
"Y"
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Namdeo - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
Shri Vagish Parashar, learned counsel for the respondent [OBJ].
ORDER
This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is preferred being aggrieved by
the order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure-A/1) by the Special Judge, Schedule
Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ujjain
whereby application for anticipatory bail of the appellant in connection with
Crime No.85/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Ujjain, District
Ujjain under Section 74, 75 of the BNS, 2023 and 3(1)(w) & 3(2)(va) of the
Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has
been rejected.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is the Head of the
Department (HOD) in the department of Criminology at "Pradhanmantri
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
2 CRA-10009-2025
College of Excellence Shaskiya Madhav Mahavidalaya, Ankpat Road
Ujjain" and prosecutrix is the Assistant Professor in the same department of
Criminology and also belongs to SC community.
3. The Crime No.85/2025 was registered at Police Station Mahila
Thana, Ujjain under Sections 74, 75 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(w),
3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 on 03.10.2025 at around 18:27 on the information of respondent
no.2 alleging the incident of 01:00 pm to the effect that she was in the room
No.204 and appellant reached their and created dispute with casteist
remarks, due to the complaint made by her to the Principal last week. When
she requested that if there is a problem, we resolve it peacefully then
appellant whispered in her ear that "you are very hot and I will cool down
your hotness" and caught her chest with bad intention. She resisted and made
an alarm. On her alarm, Dr. Kalpana Virendra Singh (Principal ) and one Dr.
Mohan Nimole (Assistant Professor) reached there. On reaching the
Principal and Assistant Professor, appellant/accused ran from the room and
fell down from the stairs and sustained injury in the head. She intimated her
husband about the incident and lodged the F.I.R.
4. Apprehending the arrest in above matter, appellant approached the
court of Special Judge, Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ujjain for anticipatory bail. The Special Judge, SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989 rejected the application referring to the bar of Section 18 of
the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
5. Challenging the impugned order, this appeal has been preferred on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
3 CRA-10009-2025
the ground that on 03.10.2025 he had lodged the complaint at Police Station
Jivaji Ganj, Ujjain against the prosecutrix in which it was disclosed that the
prosecutrix and one unknown person were sitting in a room No.204 of
Government Madhav College and that unknown person was handed over
some money to the prosecutrix and when appellant questioned that person
and asked his name then prosecutrix and unknown got angry and started
abusing him. When appellant tried to record their photo on his mobile phone
then both of them allegedly started beating him, as a result of which he
sustained a head injury. He shouted for help and Mukesh Kashyap intervened
in the matter. On his complaint, no F.I.R. was registered and intimation was
recorded at 02:45 pm as NCR No.186/2025. His medical examination was
conducted by the registered Medical Practitioner with assistance of the
Police. He performed his official duties honestly and sincerely on
07.01.2020 as Assistant Professor (Criminology) under Pradhanmantri
College of Excellence Shaskiya Madhav Mahavidalaya, Ankpat Road Ujjain.
6. The F.I.R. No.85/2025 lodged by the prosecutrix appears to be an
afterthough and the story is false and fabricated. The appellant's primary
responsibility includes the administration and teaching of students pursuing
B.A. and M.A. in Criminology. The prosecutrix is known to be arrogant,
indiscipline, and negligent in performing her official duties and appellant is
required to ensure the smooth and proper academic assessment of students.
The appellant had made several written complaints against the prosecutrix on
various dates, namely 01.10.2024, 03.10.2024, 04.11.2024, 12.11.2024,
17.12.2024, 31.12.2024, 27.01.2025, 05.02.2025, 25.04.2025, 26.05.2025,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
4 CRA-10009-2025
05.06.2025, 09.06.2025 and 19.08.2025, regarding her continuous negligence
in official duties. Remaining absent on 03.02.2025 from both the college and
examination centre, in violation of the Principal's order dated 19.02.2025.
All these complaints were made by the appellant in the interest of proper
administration, discipline, and accountability in teaching, ensuring the
academic welfare of the students. Due to these official complaints and
disciplinary actions, the prosecutrix developed personal animosity against
the appellant and, with malicious intent, has falsely implicated him in the
present case to defame and harass him. The Principal of Government
Madhav College, Ujjain had issued several written communications to the
prosecutrix on various dates i.e.05.06.2025, 09.06.2025, 25.04.2025,
31.12.2024, 26.09.2025, 24.04.2025, 26.04.2024 and 13.11.2024 directing
her to perform her official duties properly and to maintain punctuality and
discipline in the college.
7. On the basis of appellant's letter dated 26.05.2025, the Principal of
Government Madhav College, Ujjain, issued a show-cause notice to the
prosecutrix on 09.06.2025. The said notice was issued because the
prosecutrix had remained absent from the examination hall during the M.A.
(Criminology) Second Semester Examination held on 24.05.2025. The
appellant had repeatedly requested the Principal of Government Madhav
College to install a CCTV camera in Room No.204 of the Criminology
Department where the alleged incident, as claimed by the prosecutrix is said
to have occurred on 19.08.2025. On 03.10.2025, a show-cause notice was
issued to the appellant on the application of the prosecutrix alleging that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
5 CRA-10009-2025
appellant had allotted her classes from 09:00 am to 05:00 pm. There was no
discrimination or malice in the allotment of the classes. The F.I.R. is
completely silent about any public witnesses or motive of caste-based insult,
thereby failing to attract the statutory provisions and prayed for anticipatory
bail on the strength of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2018) 6 SCC 454, Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC
727, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC
694 and Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed the objection
through I.A.No.15255/2025 and submitted that in the light of bar under
Section 18 of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is apply and no case for anticipatory bail is made out
and supported the objection with Annexure-A/1 to A/3.
9. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail referring to the report No.1127/2025 dated 13.11.2025
submitted by the Police Station Jivajiganj, District Ujjain with copy of NCR
No.186/2025 recorded at Police Station Jivajiganj, District Ujjain.
Perused the record as well as the the material placed before this Court.
10. Para 6, 6.1 and 6.2 of Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr (2025
INSC 1067) is being reproduced as below to decide this appeal.
6. In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability
of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various
decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
6 CRA-10009-2025
as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the
applicability of Section 438, Cr.PC, it creates a bar against grant
of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a
person who faces specific accusations of having committed the
offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The
benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off.
6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and
has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of
it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been
made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of
such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a
room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to
the accused under Section 438 of the Code.
6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about the commission
of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can
arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the
first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR.
The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in
this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a
prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible
for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider
other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
7 CRA-10009-2025
11. The report of Police Station Jivajiganj, District Ujjain dated
13.11.2025 based on the CCTV camera installed at Government Madhav
College, Ujjain during the period of 1:25:05 to 1:25:16 pm of 03.10.2025 is
to the effect that it is not probable that unknown person caused any incident
of assault with appellant and it is also further reported that on 03.10.2025
appellant/accused and respondent no.2 both came to the Police Station
Jivajiganj, Ujjain to lodge the report against each other but no woman police
officer was available at Police Station Jivajiganj, Ujjain, so they intimated
the control room and senior police officer and respondent no.2 was sent to
the Police Station Mahila Thana, Ujjain with police constable for lodging the
report, accordingly, it is not a case that respondent no.2 lodged the report
only as counter blast to the intimation of the appellant.
12. In the above circumstances, when we test the allegations in the
F.I.R. on the principles of Kiran (supra), the appellant is not entitled for
anticipatory bail and to that extent the order of Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989 does not call for interference.
Now come to the relief.
13. Now we consider the relief on the strength of Arnesh Kumar
(supra). The offence under Section 74 of the BNS, 2023 is punishable up to 5
years and liable to be fine and offence under Section 75 of the BNS, 2023 is
punishable up to 3 years or with fine or with both and the offence under
Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is also punishable up to 5
years and with fine.
14. This court is referring to para 6 to para 7.7 of Mangaram and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
8 CRA-10009-2025
Another vs. State of M.P. (ILR 2019 MP 435) as below:-
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants has brought to the
attention of this court the order dated 11/10/2018 passed in Cr. Appeal No.
7295/18 (Atendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) while granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioner therein qua offences punishable u/Ss. 354-A
IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC & ST Act where Coordinate bench of this
court took assistance of Sec. 41 Cr.P.C., after finding the exculpatory
circumstance of the FIR in the matter being lodged after ten months of the
incident and thus the story of the prosecution being improbable.
7. It would be appropriate at this juncture to refer to the more recent
amendment in the 1989 Act by which Sec. 18-A was incorporated to the
following extent:-
"Section 18A (1) For the purpose of this Act,-
(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for
registration of a First Information Report against any person; or
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for
the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation
of having committed an offence under this Act has been made and
no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code
shall apply.
(2) The provision of section 438 of the Code shall not
apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or
order or direction of any Court."
7.1 The aforesaid sec. 18-A was incorporated to overreach and nullify
the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018(6) SCC 454 on somewhat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
9 CRA-10009-2025
misplaced assumption of the legislation that the aforesaid view of the Apex
Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) offended the
object behind 1989 Act.
7.2 Be that as it may, since this court is not to deal with the legality and
validity of the said provision of Sec. 18-A of the 1989 Act, same is to be
interpreted in a manner which reveals it's true intention.
7.3 Sec. 18-A (1)(a) and (b) are incorporated to overcome the verdict of
the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) by
foreclosing the requirement of any preliminary enquiry or approval of any
higher police officer or appointing authority as was directed by the Apex Court
in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) before registration of an offence
under the 1989 Act.
7.4 As regards Sec. 18-A (2), the same completely prohibits
anticipatory bail in an offence punishable under the 1989 Act. The prohibition
imposed is intended to be made airtight by employing the expression "Code
shall not apply" and also the non-obstinate clause "notwithstanding". Any
judgment or order or direction of any court of law cannot thus be passed
granting anticipatory bail. Meaning thereby that provision of anticipatory bail
u/S. 438 Cr.P.C.stands completely excluded qua an offence under 1989 Act.
7.5 However, the power of judicial review u/Art. 226 of the
Constitution which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution is
always available.
7.6 It is further pertinent to see from microscopic reading of clause (b)
to Sec. 18-A(1) that in respect of arrest of a person against whom offence under
the 1989 Act is alleged, no procedure except provided under the 1989 Act or
the Cr.P.C., shall apply. Thus, the procedure provided under the Cr.P.C. which
relates to the subject of arrest, is very much applicable which binds the
Investigating Officer or any other police officer while taking the extreme step
of arresting a person accused of offence punishable under the 1989 Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
10 CRA-10009-2025
7.7 Once it is clear from the very language employed by amended
section 18-A(1)(a) that all provisions relating to arrest under the Cr.P.C.are
applicable then the provision of Chapter V of Cr.P.C.which relates to arrest of
person shall apply with full vigor to regulate the process of arrest adopted by
police officer while deciding the question as to whether a person accused of
offence punishable under the 1989 Act is required to be arrested or not. In this
regard this court need not go into the prolixity of interpreting the provision of
Chapter V of Cr.P.C., especially the provision of Sec. 41-A, 41-B, 41-C and
41-D, as this court may take assistance of the law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 where it was
held thus:-
"7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C.,
it is evident that a person accused of anAbhinav Vs. State of MP
M.Cr.C.No. 6260/2016 offence punishable with imprisonment for
a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to
seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police
officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the
offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in
such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary
to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for
proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from
causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering
with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from
making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police
officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in
the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the
conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
11 CRA-10009-2025
7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts
and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a
conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while
making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to
record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.
7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must
put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What
purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after
these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as
enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be
exercised. Before arrest Abhinav Vs. State of MP M.Cr.C.No.
6260/2016 first the police officers should have reason to believe
on the basis of information and material that the accused has
committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be
satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more
purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of
Section 41 Cr.P.C."
15. In the light of above analysis, the statutory bar contained in
Section 18 of the 1989 Act comes in way of this court to grant anticipatory
bail but the mandatory procedure prescribed in 35, 36, 37 & 38 of BNS,
2023/Sec.41-A, 41-B, 41-C and 41-D of Cr.P.C. would apply with full vigor
and the pre-conditions contained in Chapter V BNS, 2023 shall have to be
satisfied before the extreme step of arrest can be taken.
16. In view of above and considering the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) this court without
interfering in the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the court
below is inclined to direct thus: -
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33022
12 CRA-10009-2025
(i) that, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when
the same is necessary and the appellants fail to cooperate in the
investigation.
(ii) that, the appellants should first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation. If the appellants cooperate in the investigation then the
occasion of their arrest should not arise.
17. Subject to above modification in the order of the trial court dated
09.10.2025, the appeal stands disposed of.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for
necessary compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
