[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6679
1 CRA-2110-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 12 th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2110 of 2026
GOPAL LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Jitendra Sharma,
counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Solanki - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Krishnapal Singh Khichi, learned counsel for the respondent [COMP].
ORDER
This criminal appeal under section 14A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Act), 1989 is preferred challenging the order dated 19.02.2026 by the
Special Judge (SC & ST (POA) Act), 1989, Rajgarh (Biaora) whereby application
(B.A.No.62/2026) for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.441/2025
registered at Police Station Pachore, District Rajgarh for the offence punishable
under Sections 64(1), 331(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(w)(i),
3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 has
been rejected.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the prosecutrix belongs to the
Scheduled Caste (SC) community, whereas the appellant/accused does not belong
to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category. The prosecutrix submitted a
written application to the In-Charge, Police Station Pachore, District Rajgarh, on
30.11.2025, alleging the commission of rape between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6679
2 CRA-2110-2026
on 28.11.2025, when she was sleeping with her children. It was further stated that
her husband had died only one month prior to the alleged incident, and at the
relevant time her father-in-law and mother-in-law had gone out of the village to
attend a function at their daughter's house. The appellant/accused, who is the
Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat knocked the door of the prosecutrix's house,
and when she opened the door appellant/accused entered into the house and
committed rape and gagged her mouth by cloth and threatened to kill the
prosecutrix if the incident is disclosed to anyone and will force her to leave the
village. Due to fear, she could not disclose the incident immediately, thereafter,
when the father-in-law and mother-in-law returned then she disclosed the whole
incident to them, and they intimated the incident to the neighbour, who came with
the prosecutrix to lodge the F.I.R. and the same was recorded and the Crime
No.441/2025 was registered. The appellant moved to the Special Judge, SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989 for anticipatory bail and the same was rejected referring to the
Bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
3. Challenging the legality of the impugned order, the present appeal has
been preferred on the ground that the prosecutrix is a 30-year-old woman having
two children, out of whom one daughter is already married. The F.I.R. was lodged
with delay in connivance with her family members. It is further submitted that the
appellant is an elected Sarpanch and, at the time when the alleged incident is
stated to have occurred, he was present at Ujjain. The appellant had issued a notice
for removal of encroachment from government land against the family members of
the prosecutrix in his capacity as Sarpanch. Due to this action, the family
members of the prosecutrix threatened to implicate the appellant in a false
case. The appellant has filed the W.P.No.576/2026 for fair investigation in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6679
3 CRA-2110-2026
matter alongwith the various documents of online payment, footage to
demonstrate the fact that he was not present in the village on 28.11.2026. It is
further submitted that the police did not conduct a fair investigation despite the
availability of scientific evidence. The entire incident does not relate to any caste
issue. From a bare perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it is evident that there is no
allegation relating to caste. When the alleged offence has no nexus with caste, the
bar contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
is not attracted. The appellant is a married person having four minor children and
is the sole breadwinner of the family. He is responsible for the day-to-day care and
maintenance of his family members. There is no legal evidence to connect the
appellant with the alleged offence. The appellant has also filed documents marked
as Annexure P/2 to Annexure P/9 to substantiate the grounds raised in the present
appeal and has relied upon various judicial pronouncements i.e. Union of India vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others; (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686, Asharfi vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh; (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 489, Chhaila s/o Ramnarayan Shukla vs. State
of M.P. and Another; [2017(3) M.P.L.J. (Cri) 275], Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs.
Union of India and Others; (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657.
4. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has opposed the appeal by filing
I.A.No.3427/2026.
5. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the application.
Heard.
6. The scope of anticipatory bail as mentioned in case of Kiran vs.
Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Anr.; 2025 INSC 1067 , Hon'ble Apex Cout has laid
down the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989 in para no.6, 6.1 and 6.2 as below:-
"6. In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6679
4 CRA-2110-2026
of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed
various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be
summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with
express language excludes the applicability of Section 438,
Cr.PC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in
absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces
specific accusations of having committed the offence under
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of
anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off.
6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and
has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the
face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to
have not been made out and that the accusations relating to
the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie
merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to
grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of
the Code.
6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of
offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court
can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by
way of the first impression upon very reading of the
averments in the FIR. The contents and the allegations in the
FIR would be decisive in this regard. Furthermore, in
reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is
made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to
travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other
materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini
trial."
7. Now, this Court is considered the facts of this case in the light of Kiran
(supra).
8. The appellant/accused is the Sarpanch of the village where the
prosecutrix resides, and the mother-in-law and father-in-law in their statement
have stated that the husband of the prosecutrix was usually in the company of the
appellant (Sarpanch) prior to her death by committing suicide. Accordingly, the
appellant was acquainted with the caste identity of the prosecutrix in the light of
the presumption under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The reasons
for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. have been explained by stating that the husband
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6679
5 CRA-2110-2026
of the prosecutrix had recently died, the child is of tender age, and her father-in-
law and mother-in-law were out of the village at the relevant time. The fact that a
resident of the village, as mentioned in the second last line of the FIR, escorted the
prosecutrix to the police station cannot be a ground to override the statutory bar
contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
plea regarding deduction through FASTag is also not of such a nature that it can
be examined at this stage.
9. Considering the nature of the allegations, taken at their face value, and
the circumstances as narrated by the prosecutrix, it cannot be deduced that the
accusations relating to the commission of rape are devoid of prima facie merits
and the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is
not attracted. Accordingly, the appellant is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory
bail in the present case on the reference of Union of India ( supra), Asharfi ( supra),
Chhaila (supra), Prathvi Raj Chauhan ( supra). The appellant does not succeed in
the light of the parameters laid down in the case of Kiran (supra). Hence, the
present criminal appeal stands dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
