IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

th

ON THE 26 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10752 of 2025 ZAHID ALI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vivek Singh -Senior Advocate with Shri Mohammed Imran Khan for the appellant.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Ahirwar-Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].

Shri Rahul Solanki -GA appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].

ORDER This criminal appeal under section 14A(2) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 is preferred challenging the order dated 28.10.2025 by Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, Mandleshwar, whereby the application for anticipatory bail of appellant/accused in connection with crime no.363/2025 registered at police station Khargone under sections 420, 294, 506 IPC and under section 3(1)

(s), 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 has been rejected.

2. Facts in brief are that the complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste community came into contact with appellant/accused who received an amount of Rs.18,24,600/- on the assurance that he will construct the house on the plot of the victim but he neither provided plot nor constructed the house and when the amount was asked then the appellant/accused uttered abusive words with caste remarks and crime no.363/2025 was registered. In the apprehension of arrest, the appellant/accused moved to the Court of Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and the Court rejected the application referring that the offence is serious in nature and the bar of section 18 also attracted. Challenging the order of the trial court, this appeal has been preferred relying on Hridya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar -(2000) 4 SCC 168 and Jolly George Varghese vs. Bank of Cochin - 1980 AIR 470 and also argued that the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 are not attracted in this case.

3. Heard.

4. Counsel for the victim opposed the petition.

5. Counsel for the State also opposed the application.

6. On perusal of the record it transpires that the amount was received by the appellant/accused but did not fulfill any purpose for which the money was received. It prima facie discloses his intention to defraud the victim. The argument that he repaid the amount later to which the complainant denies does not efface the criminal liability in toto. Accordingly, the trial court did not commit any illegality in rejecting the application for anticipatory bail. Now we consider the relief on the strength of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar -(2014) 8 SCC 273. All the offences are punishable up to 7 years.

7. This court is referring to para 6 to para 7.7 of Mangaram and Mangaram and Another vs. State of M.P. (ILR 2019 MP 435) as below:-

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants has brought to the attention of this court the order dated 11/10/2018 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 7295/18 (Atendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner therein qua offences punishable u/Ss. 354- A IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC & ST Act where Coordinate bench of this court took assistance of Sec. 41 Cr.P.C., after finding the exculpatory circumstance of the FIR in the matter being lodged after ten months of the incident and thus the story of the prosecution being improbable.

7. It would be appropriate at this juncture to refer to the more recent amendment in the 1989 Act by which Sec. 18-A was incorporated to the following extent:-

“Section 18A (1) For the purpose of this Act,- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or (b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.

(2) The provision of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment