[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pritam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5467
1 CRA-1291-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1291 of 2026
PRITAM SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Raghuveer Yardi - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Usha Chouhan - G.A. for the respondent/State.
Shri Pushpendra Kumar Dixit - Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
ORDER
This is first criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is preferred against the order dated
24.01.2026 in B.A. No.72/2026 by Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act,
1989, Dewas, whereby the application filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 for bail on behalf of appellant apprehended on 19.11.2025 in
connection with Crime No.1099/2025 registered at police station- Bank Note
Press, Dewas (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 108, 3(5) of
the BNS, 2023 and sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989 has been rejected.
2. Facts of the case are that Crime No.1099/2025 registered at Police
Station Bank Note Press, Dewas after the victim a woman belongs to
Scheduled Caste Community and a renowned player of Jiu Jitsu committed
suicide at 1:00 PM on 26.08.2025 at her residence situated at Dewas and a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5467
2 CRA-1291-2026
Merg No.110/2025 was registered at Police Station Bank Note Press Dewas
and after enquiry, the FIR bearing Crime No.1099/2025 was registered
against the present appellant and co-accused Vijendra Singh Kharsodiya.
Final report has been submitted and SCATR No.03/2026 is pending before
the Special Court.
3. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the
deceased has intimated to her parents that she is being harassed by the
present appellant and due to mental harassment by present appellant she
committed suicide by hanging herself. The trial Court has distinguished the
matter of Vijendra Kharsodiya with present appellant and referring to X vs.
State of Rajasthan: 2024 INSC 909 in which it is held that ordinarily in a
serious offences like rape, murder, decoity etc., once the trial is commenced
and the prosecution starts examining the witnesses, the Courts, it be the trial
Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application
of the accused, rejected the application.
4. Challenging the impugned order this appeal has been filed on the
ground that present appellant accused did not commit the alleged offence,
and the appellant/accused was maliciously confined and arrested for the
aforesaid mentioned alleged offences by the prosecution. Co-accused
Vijendra Kharsodiya has been granted benefit of bail. The present appellant
was performing his professional duties as the Vice President of the M.P. Jiu-
Jitsu Association and there was no malice at part of the appellant. There was
no material on record that the appellant has abetted the deceased to commit
suicide. Telephonic conversations does not discloses the purpose of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5467
3 CRA-1291-2026
conversation and assuming facts beyond scope is unjust and bad in law. The
trial will take long time and till that to keep the appellant/accused behind the
bar will defeat the fundamental right of freedom, life and personal liberty as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and there is no
possibility of conclusion of trial in near future.
5. The present appellant was in touch with the deceased merely to
support her during time of distress and has always maintained the
professional relationship. Appellant/accused is a reputed person having roots
in the society and if the appellant/accused will remain in judicial custody for
the long term then the appellant/accused have to suffer irreparable loss and
the reputation of appellant/accused as well as his family will be spoiled in
the society. He will obey all the terms and conditions which may be imposed
against the appellant/accused. Criminal antecedents registered in the form of
Crime No.27/2014 and 281/2017 registered at Police Station Hatpipaliya and
Crime No.316/2008 registered at Bank Note Press, Dewas has been resulted
in acquittal.
6. Counsel for the respondent/State opposed this criminal appeal and
prays for dismissal of the same referring to the call details record collected
during the investigation in the case and submitted that on 26.08.2025, there
were telephonic calls. Just before the committing of suicide there was a call
of the appellant accused. Present appellant does not belongs to scheduled
caste/ scheduled tribe community and the matter of co-accused Vijendra
Kharsodiya, who himself belongs to scheduled caste community is not
identical in the light of the material collected during the investigation,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5467
4 CRA-1291-2026
therefore, he can not take the benefit of parity.
7. Counsel for the objector also opposed the criminal appeal and prays
for dismissal of the same.
8. Perused the case diary.
9. As per the material collected against the appellant accused, he got
acquainted with the deceased in the year 2022-23 when deceased was elected
as the Secretary of M.P. Jiu-Jitsu Association and the appellant was the Vice
President of that Association. As per the oral dying declaration of the
deceased collected through Sakshi Jagariya, appellant accused crossed all the
limits with his treatment towards the deceased. The material collected
revealed that deceased was susceptive with the appellant that she used all
precautions that her travel itinerary could not be leaked to present appellant.
There was continuous surveillance of the appellant/accused regarding the
location of the deceased. His matter is not identical with the case of Vijendra
Kharsodiya. The appellant/accused is not entitled for bail either on merit or
on parity. Hence, the trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting
the bail application of the present appellant. The impugned order is just and
proper and no case for interference is made out.
10. In view of above, present criminal appeal stands dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
