[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amratlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7663
1 CRA-2643-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 20 th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2643 of 2026
AMRATLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhay Saraswat - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Garg - GA for the State.
Shri Anil Kumar Namdev, learned counsel 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 by the appellant challenging the
order dated 11.03.2026 by the Special Judge (SC & ST (POA) Act), 1989, Ratlam
whereby application (B.A. No.196/2026) for anticipatory bail in connection with
Crime No.48/2026 registered at Police Station- Deen Dayal Nagar, District -
Ratlam (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3),
103(1) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 has been rejected.
2. The above mentioned case has been registered for causing murder of
Shankar S/o Nagji aged 24 years resident of Savaliya Hundi, Deen Dayal Nagar,
District Ratlam belongs to scheduled tribe community by six persons including
present appellant-Amrutlal Chouhan who does not belonging to SC/ST
community. As per the prosecution case the incident occurred on 15.01.2026 in
which injuries were caused to Rahul and Shankar belonging to ST community.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7663
2 CRA-2643-2026
Report was lodged by Rahul on 17.01.2026 and the crime no.48/2026 was
registered under sections 296(A), 115(2) and 351(3)of the BNS, 2023 only. When
Shankar died on 20.01.2026 at 10 p.m. in District Hospital, Ratlam and autopsy
report disclosed 13 antemortem injuries on the body of Shankar including Mastoid
and neck and fracture on left leg, supplementary statement of Rahul was recorded
on 25.02.2026 and offences of the appropriate sections were enhanced and the
appellant was made accused in the case.
3. Trial court rejected the application on the ground that bar under section
18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is attracted in the case and no
case for anticipatory bail is made out.
4. Challenging the aforesaid, this criminal appeal is preferred on the ground
that co-accused Ramprasad caused injuries to the complainant Rahul and in the
FIR there is no mention of Shankarlal anywhere. He died due to natural cause and
not by the injuries caused by any accused persons. Deceased alongwith Titu,
Dwarka and Aju were demanding money for consuming liquor from Ramprasad
and due to non-fulfillment of payment to those persons they caused injuries to
Ramprasad and Ramprasad filed an application on 15.01.2026 (Annexure-P/2) at
P.S. Deen Dayal Nagar, District Ratlam and no action was taken on complainant's
report. Thereafter, Rahul lodged a report on 17.01.2026 in that report there is no
allegation against the present appellant and Shankar died on 28.01.2026 and this is
a case where involvement of appellant is totally false and no case is made out and
bar under section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not
attracted in this case.
5. Heard.
6. Counsel for the State opposed the criminal appeal.
7. Perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7663
3 CRA-2643-2026
8. The argument of death of Shankar due to natural cause is not inconfirmity
with the autopsy report in which 13 antemortem injuries were found present on the
body of Shankar. Medical report reveals that Shankar was admitted in district
hospital Ratlam at 00 hours of 19.01.2026 and he succumbs to injuries at 10 p.m.
of 20.01.2026. Even the informant Rahul was admitted to district hospital Ratlam
on 15.01.2026 and was discharged on 18.01.2026. No serious attention was paid to
the incident. Deceased Shankar was bound to take treatment in private hospital
and they came on guard after admission of Shankar at 6:33 a.m. of 20.01.2026 and
tried to justify their inaction through recording the statement of a Shankar who
without mentioning time who himself died at 10 p.m. on 20.01.2026.
9. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7663
4 CRA-2643-2026
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."
10. This court is considered the material collected during the investigation in
the light of Kiran (supra), it cannot be said that the accusation of commission of an
offence is devoid of prima facie merit warranting the exercise of discretion to grant
anticipatory bail to the appellant- Amrutlal. Accordingly, the trial court did not
commit any error in rejecting the application for anticipatory bail of the appellant,
and hence this criminal appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
