[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Suryakant @ Anand Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23792
1 CRA-2465-2026
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. 2465 of 2026
DR. SURYAKANT @ ANAND DIXIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kabeer Paul advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Vineeta Sharma public prosecutor for State.
ORDER
1. This first criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section
14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act being aggrieved by impugned order dated 6.3.2026 passed in
Bail No. 59/2026 by Special Judge, (under SC & ST Act) Burhanpur,
whereby bail application filed under section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been
rejected. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the victim has been
informed.
2. B eing aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed
present criminal appeal assailing Order dated 06.3.2026 declining grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellant in connection with Crime No.
434/2025 registered at P.S. - Nimbola, District Burhanpur (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 126(2), 296(b), 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23792
2 CRA-2465-2026
(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the appeal, contends that the allegation with regard to abuse
with reference to caste of the complainant relates to his house, therefore,
offence punishable under Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not
made out against the appellant. Learned counsel referring to the chronology
of events contends that co-accused Rakesh Sehival submitted a complaint to
the revenue authorities regarding sale of government land comprised in
survey No. 67/2/1. The revenue authority enquired into the complaint. The
Collector Burhanpur vide order dated 10.11.2025 had set aside the sale dated
11.11.2024 executed by Suresh Sirsade (the complainant herein) in favour of
Sudhir. Thereafter, false FIR alleging blackmailing was lodged against the
appellant and co-accused Rakesh Sehival on 3.12.2025. The FIR was
registered on the basis of written complaint at the Police Station Nimbola on
15.12.2025. It goes to show that the complainant being aggrieved by setting
aside of sale has made false complaint against the appellant and co-accused.
No offence, as alleged is committed by the appellant. The appellant is aged
58 years. He is a Reporter by profession. He had published a report on the
factual matrix of the case, therefore, he was subjected to false prosecution in
the matter. The learned counsel prays that learned Special Judge has
committed an error in rejecting the application for anticipatory bail,
therefore, the impugned order be set aside and appellant may be extended
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23792
3 CRA-2465-2026
benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail
application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence by submitting that the
complainant has made specific allegation of blackmailing and abuse with
reference to his caste against the appellant and co-accused, therefore, in
view of the bar contained under Section 18-A of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the applicant does not
deserve grant of bail. Learned counsel further referred to three criminal
antecedents against the appellant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and the
impugned order.
6. The complainant has submitted a written complaint alleging
blackmailing and compulsion against the appellant and co-accused since
2024 with regard to sale of land. It is alleged that the appellant and co-
accused had induced him to pay Rs. 50,000/- and demanded Rs. 5 Lacs
regarding sale transaction executed by him in favour of Sudhir Patil. Further,
they abused him with reference to his caste in presence of his relative at his
home. On 9.5.2025, the accused again threatened him and again abused him
with reference to his caste in public view. In view of these specific
allegations, the veracity of which will be determined after evidence in the
trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interdict contained under
Section 18-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 would apply. Considering the criminal antecedents of
grievous offences, no case for grant of rare and exceptional relief of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23792
4 CRA-2465-2026
anticipatory bail is made out. The impugned Order does not suffer from any
manifest impropriety or illegality.
7. Accordingly, the appeal (Cri.A. No. 2465/2026) is dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
