[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amandeep Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16577
1 CRA-1619-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1619 of 2026
AMANDEEP SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Surendra Singh - Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagat Singh - Advocate for
appellant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal - P.L. for State.
Mr. Vikas Mishra - Advocate for victim.
ORDER
This first bail application in shape of appeal under Section 14 (A) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 has been filed against the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Special
Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act), District Damoh (M.P.), in Bail Application
No.48/2026 whereby the application moved by present appellant for grant of
anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 as he is apprehending his
arrest in connection with Crime No.47/2026 registered at Police Station
Kotwali, District Damoh (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69
of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present
appellant that present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. As
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16577
2 CRA-1619-2026
per the allegations, the present appellant has given a room in Housing Board
Colony to the prosecutrix in September, 2025 and has made physical
relationship on 25th September, 2025 on the false pretext of marriage.
Thereafter the present appellant has so many times made physical relations
with her on the false pretext of marriage. Thereafter, he denied to marry with
her on the ground that she belongs to SC category and miscarriage was also
between them. On 09.01.2026, when the present appellant has denied to
marry with the prosecutrix then she lodged the report but prima face there is
no case made out under the SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, no bar of Section
18 of the aforessaid Act arises. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46 and
submitted that there was no false promise of marriage to the prosecutrix from
inception and, therefore, no case is made out under Section 69 of BNS. The
appellant has no criminal antecedents. He is ready to comply with all the
terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. In view of the
aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the benefit of anticipatory bail may be
granted to the present appellant.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as objector has opposed
the bail application/appeal on the ground that prima facie a clear cut case
under the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 69 BNS is made out
against the present appellant. It is not reflected from the story of prosecution
as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that there
was no false pretext of marriage on behalf of the present appellant. The bar
of Section 18 also arises and, therefore, the present appellant is not entitled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16577
3 CRA-1619-2026
to get the benefit of anticipatory bail.
4 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well
as the material available on record.
5. Considering the allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the
prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., this Court finds that
specific allegations have been levelled against the present appellant that he
established physical relations with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of
marriage and subsequently refused to marry her on the ground of her caste.
At this stage, the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence in detail or
to record a finding on the merits of the case. The material available on record
prima facie discloses commission of offence under Section 69 of the BNS as
well as under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. In view of the specific
allegations attracting the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the bar
contained under Section 18 of the said Act is clearly applies in the present
case. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in
Uday (supra) is distinguishable on facts at this stage.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to
extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present appellant.
7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ac/-
