Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prashant Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46149
1 CRA-7041-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7041 of 2025
PRASHANT YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Bendel - Advocate
for appellant.
Shri Anil Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal (first) under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been
filed against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Sagar
(M.P.), in Bail Application No.925 of 2025 whereby the application moved
by present appellants for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime
No.343 of 2025 registered at Police Station Deori, District Sagar (M.P.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Sanhita and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants does
not want to press this criminal appeal filed on behalf of the applicant No.2 -
Raju Yadav.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46149
2 CRA-7041-2025
3. Prayer allowed.
4. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn so far
as it relates to appellant No.2 - Raju Yadav.
5. So far as the appeal on behalf of Appellant No.1 Prashant Yadav is
concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submits that, as per the
prosecution story, the deceased committed suicide. The allegation levelled
against the present appellant and the co-accused is that they had allegedly
encroached upon the land belonging to the deceased, which purportedly led
to the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is submitted that there is a
delay of 15 days in lodging FIR. It is further submitted that an FIR bearing
No.322 of 2025 was lodged one day prior to the incident, but the same was
registered at the instance of the son of the deceased and not by the deceased
himself. Furthermore, in the said FIR, the deceased was not shown as a
victim. Therefore, there is no act of instigation, abetment, or any overt act
attributable to the present appellant that could have led the deceased to
commit suicide. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of
Section 107 read with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, are not made
out from the contents of the FIR or the other material available on record.
Consequently, when the offence under Section 306 IPC is not prima-facie
made out, the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would not be attracted. In this
regard learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union
of India and others, (2020) 4 SCC 727. It is further submitted that only one
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46149
3 CRA-7041-2025
other case, i.e., Crime No. 322 of 2025, has been registered against the
present appellant, which pertains to an incident that allegedly occurred one
day prior to the present incident and the appellant has been falsely implicated
therein as well. It is also submitted that as per the documents appended with
the application for documents taken on record the father of the appellant
No.1 Prashant has sustained severe heart attack and is presently undergoing
treatment in a hospital. The appellant No.1 is ready and willing to abide by
all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court.
Conclusion of trial will take time. In view of the aforesaid, he prays for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellant No.1.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail
application/appeal and prayed for its rejection.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
while deciding the issue whether the grant of anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is prohibited in cases involving
offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, held that where a prima facie case is not established,
anticipatory bail may be granted in appropriate circumstances with a cautious
exercise of powers and has further held that Sections 18 and 18-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
have no application in cases where a prima facie case is not established.
9. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid case and having
regard to the attending facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46149
4 CRA-7041-2025
opinion of this Court this is a fit case in which anticipatory bail may be
granted as no prima facie case is made out against the present appellant in
respect of offence alleged. However, without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated
16.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Sagar (M.P.), in Bail Application No.925 of
2025 and it is directed that if the appellant No.1 appears before the
Investigating Officer/trial Court within fifteen days from today and furnishes
personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned Investigating Officer/trial Court, then he shall be released on
anticipatory bail.
10. It is made clear that if appellant No.1 fails to appear before the
Investigating Officer/trial Court within fifteen days from today, then this
order shall automatically stand cancelled.
11. The appellant No.1 shall further abide by following conditions:-
(i) Appellant No.1 shall make himself available for investigation as may
be directed by the officer in-charge of investigation;
(ii) Appellant No.1 shall not commit or get involved in any offence of
similar nature;
(iii) Appellant No.1 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the
police officer;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46149
5 CRA-7041-2025
(iv) Appellant No.1 shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with
the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;
(v) Upon submission of final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C/ 193 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant No.1 shall furnish
fresh personal bond and solvent surety of aforementioned amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court, if so directed and thereafter, shall remain
present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned Court;
(vi) During trial, the appellant No.1 shall ensure due compliance of
provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C/ 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, regarding examination of witnesses in attendance.
12. This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of
breach of any of the precondition of bail, the trial Court may consider on
merit cancellation of bail without any impediment of this order.
13. The Trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal
bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If any of
them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the
conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
