[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vineeta Sallam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15583
1 CRA-9422-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 24 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9422 of 2025
VINEETA SALLAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.R. Verma - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Mukesh Shukla - Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
The appellant has filed this third criminal appeal for bail filed under Section
14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Bail Application
No.438 of 2025 by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, District Chhindwara
(M.P.), whereby her bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, has
been rejected. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
09.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.21838 of 2025 and the second one was also
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.06.2025 passed in CRA No.5219 of
2025.
2. The appellant has been arrested on 23.01.2025 relating to FIR/Crime No.31
of 2025 registered at Police Station Dehat, District Chhindwara (M.P.) for offence
punishable under Sections 103(a), 238 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of present appellant has pointed out that
the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15583
2 CRA-9422-2025
submitted that the appellant is the wife of the deceased. The investigation in the
present case has been concluded and the charge-sheet has already been filed before
the competent Court. The statements of Neeraj (PW-1), who had earlier made a
statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and Kailash (PW-2), the father of the
deceased, have been recorded before the learned trial Court. Both the aforesaid
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution at all and have been
declared hostile. Except for the Call Detail Records (CDR), there is no other
material available against the present appellant. Even the said CDR does not
disclose or establish the location of the appellant at the relevant point of time. In
view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that there is no cogent,
reliable, or incriminating evidence available on record against the present
appellant and she has a good case on merits. The appellant has been in judicial
custody since 23.01.2025. She has no criminal antecedents. The trial is likely to
take a considerable time to conclude. The appellant undertakes to abide by any
condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4 . Per contra , learned counsel for State has opposed the prayer of bail and
prayed for rejection of appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and
keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to release the appellant on bail. Thus, without commenting anything on
the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the appellant be
released on bail upon her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Committal Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15583
3 CRA-9422-2025
7. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the appellant:-
"i) The appellant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond
executed by her;
ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may
be;
iii) The appellant shall not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case
may be;
iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which she is accused;
v) The appellant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during trial;
vi) The appellant shall not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and
vii) If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, then this order shall lose
its effect automatically."
8. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance by the
office of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
