[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28874
1 CRA-12239-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 15 th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12239 of 2025
AMIT PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Singh Saini - Advocate for the appellant.
Smt Vineeta Sharma - Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Nitin Dubey - Advocate for the respondent No.2/victim.
ORDER
The appellant has filed this first criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
being aggrieved by order dated 03.12.2025 passed in SC No.290/2025 passed by
the Second Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur, MP whereby his
bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, has been rejected.
2. The appellant has been arrested on 31.08.2025 relating to FIR/Crime
No.549/2025 registered at police station - Garha District Jabalpur (M.P.); for
offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that the present
appellant has been implicated falsely in this case. The present appellant has not
committed any wrongful act with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is aged 18 years
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28874
2 CRA-12239-2025
and 06 months and she is major. There is no data of conversation between the
present appellant and prosecutrix on telephone or mobile. The DNA report and
FSL report are negative. No injury has been found while medical examination of
the prosecutrix. Therefore, the appellant has a good case on merits. The appellant
is in custody since 31.08.2025 and the charge sheet has been filed. He is ready to
comply with the conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, it is
prayed that the appellant may be granted benefit of bail.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the respondent
No.2/victim have vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the FIR has
been lodged on the same day and without any inordinate delay. Though DNA
report and FSL reports are negative but that is because of uninterpretable Y-
chromosome and, therefore, it does not affect the credibility of prosecution story.
It is also submitted that there is amble evidence on record and it is further
submitted that along with I.A. No.869/2026 certain photographs have been filed
by the present appellant which revealed his ill-intention to defame the prosecutrix.
It is also submitted that there is no ground for granting bail and thus the appeal
filed by the appellant be dismissed.
5. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on
record, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the present
appellant at this stage.
6. It is true that the prosecutrix is stated to be a major and that the DNA as well
as FSL reports are not positive. However, as rightly contended by learned counsel
for the State, the said reports are not conclusively exculpatory in nature inasmuch
as the result has been attributed to an uninterpretable Y-chromosome, thereby not
completely ruling out the allegations levelled against the appellant. At this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28874
3 CRA-12239-2025
juncture, the evidentiary value of such reports cannot be assessed in isolation,
particularly when the matter is still at the stage of trial.
7. Further, the prompt lodging of the FIR on the very same day of the incident
lends prima facie credibility to the prosecution version and rules out the
possibility of deliberation or concoction. The contention of the appellant regarding
absence of telephonic or electronic communication is a matter of defence, which
cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of consideration of bail.
8. This Court also takes note of the submission made on behalf of the victim and
the State regarding the existence of sufficient material on record pointing towards
the involvement of the appellant.
9. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the
evidence collected during investigation, and the likelihood of the appellant
influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out.
10. Accordingly, without commenting upon merits of the case, the present
appeal stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
