The court ruled that anticipatory bail may be granted if no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is established, emphasizing the necessity of substantial allegations in the FIR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH th ON THE 9 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8260 of 2025 BANE SINGH AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Harshwardhan Sharma - learned counsel for the appellants.

Ms. Neelu Khetra - learned GA for the respondent/State.

ORDER This Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is preferred challenging the order dated 28/07/2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Rajgarh (Biaora), M.P. whereby an application for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.164/2025 registered at Police Station Kurawar District Rajgarh under Sections296, 115(2), 119, 126, 131, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS & Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been rejected.

02. The case was registered at the instance of Anokhilal Verma belonging to Chamar caste (enumerated at serial no.14 of Scheduled Castes list for State of Madhya Pradesh) on 22.05.2015 regarding incident dated 13.05.2015 towards Anokhilal and her friend Mahesh. The incident was alleged that Anokhilal and Mahesh were returning to village Chabad on Signature Not Verified

13.05.2015 at around 01:00 pm after completing the work of whitewashing. On that day, there was a religious function in the village and Anokhilal and Mahesh restrained themselves from entering into the village. Thereafter, Himmat Singh Gurjar, Hem Singh Gurjar, Chandan Singh Gurjar and Suraj Gurjar came there and warned Anokhilal and Mahesh about their intoxicated condition and started misbehaving with them and also caused injuries. All the five persons put off the shirts of Anokhilal and Mahesh and put some material (kemach) on the body that caused irritation to Anokhilal and Mahesh and thereafter they put them to school and put some black oil on their face and put garland of shoes, insulted Anokhilal & Mahesh and uttered casteist words and prepared the video and also extended the threat to life and threatened not to enter into the village. Thereafter, Mahesh fled to Bhopal and earlier incident was also mentioned in which Chandar Singh & Karan Singh refused to vacate the possession of land that was mortgage for the security of loan of Six Lac Rupees.

03. The trial Court has rejected the application recording the reasons that bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is attracted in this case as the appellants were the Patels' (पटेल) of the village and they have asked the victim to pay the find and victims deposited the fine amount by selling their crops.

04. Challenging the findings of the trial Court, this criminal appeal has been preferred.

05. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal.

Perused the record.

Signature Not Verified

06. Before proceeding further, the principles governing for grant of anticipatory involving offence under SC & ST Act, 1989 has been laid down in case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another reported in 2025 INSC

1067 and the relevant para 6 is being reproduced 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 be