[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9769
1 CRA-2328-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2328 of 2026
SHUBHAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta- GA for the State.
ORDER
This is first criminal appeal under section 14A(2) of the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 is preferred by the appellants
challenging the order dated 16.09.2025 by the Special Judge (SC & ST
(POA) Act), 1989, Mandsaur whereby application (B.A. No.1300/2025) for
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.275/2025 registered at Police
Station- Piplyamandi, District-Mandsaur (MP) for the offence punishable
under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)
(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 has
been rejected.
2. Challenging the order of the trial court this criminal appeal is
preferred on the ground that no case is made out against the appellant as the
allegations made by the victim Krishna who belongs to scheduled caste
community.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9769
2 CRA-2328-2026
3. Counsel for the State has opposed the criminal appeal.
4. Trial court has rejected the application on the ground that bar of
section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 is attracted
in this case.
5. Perused the case diary.
6. The scope of anticipatory bail as mentioned in case of Kiran vs.
Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Anr.; 2025 INSC 1067 , Hon'ble Apex Cout has laid
down the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989 in para no.6, 6.1 and 6.2 as below:-
"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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9769
3 CRA-2328-2026
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 . Now, this Court is considered the facts of this case in the light of
Kiran (supra). Considering the statement of victim-Krishna who belongs to
schedule caste community it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made
out against the appellant. Accordingly, no case for grant of bail to the
appellant is made out, hence, criminal appeal is dismissed.
8. Now considering the remedy available to the appellant since none of
the offences attract punishment more than seven years of imprisonment, the
arrest can be effected only if the appellant does not cooperate in the
investigation process.
9. Thus, considering the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 , it is directed
that in offences involving punishment upto seven years imprisonment the
police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is
necessary and the appellant does not cooperate in the investigation. The
appellant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the
appellant cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest
should not arise. For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are
enumerated below:-
"7.1. From a plain reading of the provision
u/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9769
4 CRA-2328-2026
accused of an 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.
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.
9. Another provision i.e. Section 41-A
Cr.P.C. aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9769
5 CRA-2328-2026
threat of arrest looming large on the accused
requires to be vitalised. This provision makes
it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a
person is not required under Section 41(1)
Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue
notice directing the accused to appear before
him at a specified place and time. Law
obliges such an accused to appear before the
police officer and it further mandates that if
such an accused complies with the terms of
notice he shall not be arrested, unless for
reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of
the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At
this stage also, the condition precedent for
arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.P.C.
has to be complied and shall be subject to the
same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid.
10. 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 16.09.2025 passed by the Court
below is inclined to direct thus:-
(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme
step of arrest only when the same is
necessary and the appellant fails to cooperate
in the investigation.
(ii) That, the appellant should first be
summoned to cooperate in the investigation.
If that appellant cooperates in the
investigation then the occasion of his arrest
should not arise.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9769
6 CRA-2328-2026
Subject to above modification in the order of
the trial court dated 16.09.2025 the appeal
stands disposed of.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for
necessary compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
