Ravindra Kumar Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23943




                                                           1                          CRA-2558-2026
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
                                                ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2026
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2558 of 2026
                                        RAVINDRA KUMAR VISHWAKARMA
                                                    Versus
                                   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                 Shri Madan Singh advocate for the appellant.

                                 Shri Pravalagn Pandey public prosecutor for State.

                                                               ORDER

1. 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 06.3.2026 passed by Sessions Judge Umaria, District Umaria (M.P.), whereby bail application u/S 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 of appellant has been rejected. The appellant is in custody since 27.2.2026.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed present criminal appeal for grant of bail to the appellant in connection with Crime No. 359/2025 registered by P.S. Naurozabad District Umaria (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of the BNS 2023 and Section 3(2) (v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23943

2 CRA-2558-2026

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that intimation u/S 15A of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been given to the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant in addition to the grounds

mentioned in the appeal memo submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is a case of consensual relationship between worldly wise adults. They were in relationship since 2012. When their relationship turned sour, and could not culminate into marriage, false allegation of rape on promise of marriage are levelled against the appellant. The investigation is

almost complete. Further custodial interrogation of the appellant is not needed in the matter. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by the appellant. No criminal antecedent is reported against the appellant. The trial would take time to conclude. The appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that learned Special Judge has committed an error in rejecting the application for bail, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the appellant may be extended the benefit of bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, after going through the case diary, he fairly submits that no criminal antecedent is reported against the appellant. Appellant is aged around 34 years, he is a labourer by profession and has family responsibility.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23943

3 CRA-2558-2026

6. Heard the rival contentions of the parties, perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the appeal and the case diary.

7. As per accusation on case diary, the complainant, aged around 32 years, reported to the Police Station Naurozabad in District Umaria on 19.10.2025 that she came in contact with Ravindra Kumar Vishwakarma in year 2012. Ravindra promised to marry her and had physical relations with her in the night of 15.12.2012 . Thereafter, Ravindra had physical relations with her on multiple occasions on promise of marriage. On 23.5.2025, she went to her village. Ravindra again called her and had physical relations with her. Ravindra declined to marry her after he got a job in the Colliery. On such allegations, the Police Station Naurozabad registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant was arrested on 27.2.2026. He is in custody ever since. The relevant investigation has been conducted. The statements of complainant and other witness have been recorded. The trial would take time to conclude. Apparently. it is a

case of long consensual relationship. The contentions advanced by the

appellant have prima facie merit and cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of appellant will be decided after evidence in trial. The trial court committed error in declining bail to applicant in view of above facts.

8. Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of the

case, in the light of aforestated facts, but without commenting on the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23943

4 CRA-2558-2026 merits, while setting aside the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the Trial Court, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail. Thus, the appeal is allowed.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant - Ravindra Kumar Vishwakarma shall be released on bail in connection with Crime as mentioned in para 2 of this order, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for compliance with the following conditions, : (For convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi as under):-

(1) Appellant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned court;

(1) vkosnd lacaf/kr U;k;ky; ds funZs'kkuqlkj lquokbZ dh izR;sd frfFk ij mifLFkr jgsxkA (2) Appellant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;

(2) vkosnd leku izd`fr dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha djsxk ;k mlesa lfEefyr ugha gksxkA (3) Appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; (3) vkosnd izdzj.k ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh O;fDr dks izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls izyksHku] /kedh ;k opu ugha nsxk] ftlls ,slk O;fDr ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks izdV djus ls fuokfjr gksA (4) Appellant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;

(4) vkosnd izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls lk{; ds lkFk NsMNkM djus dk ;k lk{kh ;k lkf{k;ksa dks cgykus&Qqlykus] ncko Mkyus ;k /kedkus dk iz;kl ugha djsxkA (5) During trial, the appellant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C. regarding examination of witnesses in attendance;

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23943

5 CRA-2558-2026 (5) fopkj.k ds nkSjku] mifLFkr xokgksa ls ijh{k.k ds laca/k esa vkosnd /kkjk 309 na-iz-la- ds izko/kkuksa dk mfpr vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsxkA

This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach of any of the preconditions of bail, the trial Court may consider on merit cancellation of bail without any impediment of this order.

10. The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety. C.C. as per rules.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE

BDJ