[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lata vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8187
1 CRA-289-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 289 of 2026
LATA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Paritosh Trivedi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh Baghel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
ORDER
The appellant has filed this first criminal appeal under Section 14-A
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 being aggrieved by order dated 30.12.2025 passed in bail application
No.455/2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, Harda, MP.
2 . The appellant has been arrested on 26.12.2025 relating to FIR/Crime
No.625/2025 registered at Police Station Bareli, District Raisen (M.P.) for
offence punishable under Sections 296(1), 115(2), 351(3), 118(2), 3(5) of
BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Act).
3 . It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that present
appellant is in custody since 26.12.2025. The appellant is a lady of 42 years
of age. As per story of the prosecution, the FIR is delayed by 2 days but no
plausible explanation for the same has been given by the prosecution. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8187
2 CRA-289-2026
also submitted the initially the FIR did not depict the name of the present
appellant and the name of the present appellant is mentioned for the first time
on 06.12.2025 when the statement of the victim has been taken by the police.
The victim has changed the entire story and initially he has stated that co-
accused Ramswaroop has caused injury by means of a stone but thereafter
vide statement dated 06.12.2025, he has stated that present appellant has
caused the injury by means of a stone on his face. She has a good case on
merit. She is ready to comply with the stringent conditions as may be
imposed by this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may be
released on bail.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail
application/appeal and prayed for its rejection.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and
the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to release
the present appellant on bail. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the
case, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that 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.
7 . This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the appellant :-
"i) The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by them:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8187
3 CRA-289-2026
ii) The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
iii) The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them 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 he is accused;
v) The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial;
vi) The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
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
C
