[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Suman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10944
1 CRA-2479-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2479 of 2026
DEEPAK SUMAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sijoria and Ms. Sakshi Basnet - Advocate for
appellants.
Shri Vikram Pippal - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
ORDER
1. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State informs that
respondent No. 2/complainant has been served notice about the pendency of
the present criminal appeal.
2. This second criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14- A (2)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities
Amendment) Act, 2015 against order dated 06.02.2026 passed by Special
Judge (Atrocities), Guna (M.P.), whereby the anticipatory bail application of
the appellants filed under Section 482 of BNSS has been rejected.
3. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with
Crime No.114/2024 registered at Police Station - Bajranggarh, Guna (M.P.),
for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of
IPC & 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10944
2 CRA-2479-2026
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.06.2024 at about
6:00 P.M., the complainant had gone to work as a labourer on the farm of
Sunil Bhatt at Bajranggarh. The accused persons, who reside near Sunil
Bhatt's farm, came to there and, knowing him to belong to the Harijan caste,
abused him with filthy caste-indicating words and questioned why he had
come to work on Sunil Bhatt's farm. The complainant replied that he had
come to work as a labourer and would work wherever he was paid wages.
On this issue, both the accused allegedly assaulted him with fists and kicks,
causing severe injuries to his stomach and back. Thereafter, both of them
went to their house, threatening that if he returned to work on Sunil Bhatt's
farm, they would kill him. After some time, the farm owner, Sunit Bhatt,
arrived, and the complainant informed him about the incident. Subsequently,
the complainant lodged an FIR at Police Station Bajrangarh, Guna, and the
offence was registered.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that for the
offence in question, earlier applications for anticipatory bail were since
rejected by the learned trial Court, after which they approached this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.546/2025 which was permitted to be withdrawn vide
order dated 27.01.2025, and the learned trial Court was directed to ensure
compliance of the guidelines laid down in cases of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State
of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Notification No.A/5666/III-2-9/40 Pt-I
F.No.15 dated 20/09/2023 issued by High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur. The trial Court was also expected to comply with the mandate of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10944
3 CRA-2479-2026
law laid down in Para 35 and 43 of judgment of Satender Kumar Antil
(supra), Para 9 and 10 of judgment of Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 and Amanpreet Singh Vs. CBI 2022,
(13) SCC 764.
6 . Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in
pursuance thereof, they moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail
before the learned trial Court at the stage of filing of the charge sheet by the
prosecution, as during the course of investigation the appellants were not
arrested and were extended the benefit of notice under Section 41-A of
Cr.P.C.. Therefore, at the time of filing of challan, their custody may not be
required, and learned trial Court ought to have considered the application for
grant of anticipatory bail filed by the appellants. He submits that in terms of
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharth vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another, 2022 (1) SCC 676 , the appearance of the appellants at
the stage of filing of challan is not required.
7 . On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent No.1/State opposes the bail application and submits that since the
offences under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities
Amendment) Act, 2015 are also alleged against the appellants, in view of the
statutory bar contained in Section 18 of the Act, 2015, the present
anticipatory bail application filed by the appellants is itself not maintainable.
That apart, he submits that the appellants were served with the notices under
Section 41-1B Cr.P.C. on 16.12.2024, informing them that the challan would
be presented before the trial Court on 18.12.2024 and they are required to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10944
4 CRA-2479-2026
remain present in the trial Court on the said date. In the said notices, the
signatures of the appellants against their photographs affixed on the notice
itself were also obtained yet, the appellants did not appear before the trial
Court and have not surrendered before the trial Court till date; therefore, they
are not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9 . It is seen that after rejection of the earlier anticipatory bail
applications filed by the appellants by the learned trial Court, the appellants
approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.546/2025, seeking
anticipatory bail, which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated
27.01.2025 issuing certain directions to the learned trial Court. The perusal
of the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the learned trial Court, impugned in
the appeal, indicates that thereafter, the appellants moved another
anticipatory bail application before the trial Court bearing Application
No.1025/2025, which was rejected on 28.11.2025 as not pressed. Thereafter,
a third application appears to have been moved by the appellants before the
learned trial Court, which was also rejected vide order dated 06.02.2026. The
copy of notice dated 16.12.2024 issued and served on the appellants under
Section 41-1B Cr.P.C. clearly informs the appellants to appear before the
trial Court on the date of filing of challan, i.e., 18.12.2024. There is nothing
on record to indicate as to whether the appellants have appeared before the
learned trial Court on the said date. The order impugned in the instant appeal
indicates that the trial against the appellants is still not commenced, as the
matter is fixed for their appearance before the learned trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10944
5 CRA-2479-2026
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the
conduct of the appellants, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant
second anticipatory bail application filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the
same stands dismissed.
11. However, it is observed that in case, the appellants appear before
the learned trial Court and file a regular bail application, the trial Court shall
make endeavour to consider and decide the same on merits on the same day.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the second criminal appeal stands
dismissed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
