Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11677




                                                              1                               CRA-2315-2026
                               IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT GWALIOR
                                                          BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
                                                    ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2315 of 2026
                                               RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA
                                                        Versus
                                       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                    Shri Anil Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.

                                    Shri Mohit Shivhare - P.P for the respondent No.1/State

                                                                  ORDER

1. The appellant has filed this second criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 27.02.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Bhind (M.P.) rejecting the application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of BNSS. His first criminal appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.02.2026 passed in Cr.A. No.1573/2026.

2. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the complainant has been informed about filing of this appeal in compliance with mandate of Section 15-A of the Act of 1989.

3. The appellant is apprehending his arrest relating to Crime No.21/2026 registered by Police Station Gormi, District Bhind (M.P.) for offence

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11677

2 CRA-2315-2026 punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)

(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix submitted a written

complaint at Police Station Gormi, District Bhind (M.P.) alleging that the present appellant had acquaintance with her for the last about five years and is alleged to have established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that when the prosecutrix requested the appellant to marry her, the appellant refused to do so and threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Crime No. 21/2026 was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant in addition to the grounds mentioned in the appeal submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned trial Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application in view of interdict contained in Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 without considering the material available on record. Learned counsel referring to the judgments in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Others (2020) 4 SCC 727 (Para 11) and Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) 4 SCC 761 (Para 57) submits that the offence punishable under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 needs to be prima facie established on the material available on case diary to attract the interdict under Section 18 of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that it

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11677

3 CRA-2315-2026

is a case of consensual relationship between two consenting adults. The age of the prosecutrix is about 35 years, whereas the present appellant is aged about 67 years, and the prosecutrix herself is a married lady who was living separately from her husband. Learned counsel contends that no intention to defraud can be gathered from inception against the appellant. Rather, it is a case of a failed relationship whereafter allegations have been made against the appellant.

6. Learned counsel referring to judgment of the Apex Court in cases of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana AIR (2013) SC 2071 , Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR (2016) SC 406 a n d Uday Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46 submits that prosecutrix continued to have physical relationship with the appellant for sufficiently long period of time, knowing well that appellant is avoiding to marry her.

7. It is further submitted that the relationship between the parties continued for several years and the prosecutrix herself was a major and married lady living separately from her husband. There is no material to show that the consent of the prosecutrix was obtained by any false promise of marriage from the inception.

8. Learned counsel contends that no offence punishable under the relevant provisions is made out against the appellant. Further, no offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellant. Therefore, the interdict contained in Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11677

4 CRA-2315-2026 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would not apply to the prosecution in hand.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is aged about 67 years and is a businessman by profession. He has family to look after. There is no likelihood of his absconsion leaving his family, home and business. There is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence by the appellant. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation. Jail incarceration on false allegations would bring social disrepute and hardship to the appellant. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter. Learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Bhind (M.P.) committed an error in rejecting the application under Section 482 of BNSS vide order dated 27.02.2026. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the appellant may be released on bail.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that the complainant got frightened and, therefore, she could not immediately lodge the FIR. The prima facie material available in the case diary makes out the alleged offence. Therefore, the appellant may not be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the earlier application filed by the present appellant was simply withdrawn, there is no bar in maintaining the second anticipatory bail application, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11677

5 CRA-2315-2026

13. Considering rival contention and material available on case diary, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interdict contained in Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would not apply.

14. Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and overall circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal. The order dated 27/02/2026 is set-aside and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant Rajendra Prasad Sharma , he shall be released on bail in relation to the Crime No. 21/2026 registered by Police Station Gormi, District Bhind (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the officer making arrest/trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Applicant shall make himself available for investigation as may be directed by the officer, in-charge of investigation;

(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;

(3) Applicant 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;

(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11677

6 CRA-2315-2026 (5) Upon submission of final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, the applicant 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;

(6) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C. regarding examination of witnesses in attendance;

15. 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.

16. 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.

C.C. as per rules.

(AMIT SETH) JUDGE

Van