Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27328
1 CRA-6093-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 18th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6093 of 2025
PAPPU SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Patidar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Solanki - GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes
and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is preferred
challenging the order dated 5/5/2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST
(POA) Act, Ratlam whereby an application for anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No.08/2017 registered at Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Ratlam under Sections 376(2)(K), 366, 344, 506 of the IPC &
Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
2. The Exclusive Special Court has rejected the application referring
to the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
3. Challenging the order, this appeal has been preferred on the ground
that co-accused Himmat Singh, Bheemsingh and Rajkunwar have been
acquitted by the trial Court on 07.03.2025. Victim was major and the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27328
2 CRA-6093-2025
will take long time. The appellant is a permanent resident of Alankar Palace,
Kesarbagh, Indore. Hence, prays for the release of the appellant on
anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the appeal on
the ground that this appellant/accused remain absconded for a period of more
than 8 years and in the light of State of M.P. vs. Pradeep Shar; AIR 2014 SC
626, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. Apart from that, the allegations against the present appellant is that
he extended threat to the victim by using firearm that resulted in abduction
of the victim and thereafter unlawfull marriage and rape on 11.05.2017 by
co-accused Himmat Singh and this appellant as mentioned in the statement
recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on
28.06.2017.
6. The parameters for grant of anticipatory involving offence under SC
& ST (POA) Act, 1989 has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & another; 2025 INSC 1067 . The relevant
para 6 of the said judgment is being reproduced as under:
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27328
3 CRA-6093-2025
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.
7. On the test laid down in Kiran (supra), the trial Court has not
committed any error & the bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989
attracts in this case. Hence, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
