IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

nd

ON THE 2 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12165 of 2025

SONU BARUA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Mukesh Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rohit Shrivastava Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 1/State.

Ms. Shalini Raipuria- Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

ORDER relation to the offence punishable under Sections 140(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(gha) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellant has filed this first criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhind, whereby bail application under Section 483 of BNSS of appellant has been

dismissed.

2 . Learned Counsel for the State submits that the victim has been

informed about filing of this appeal in compliance with mandate of Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Appellant has been arrested on 21.10.2025 by the Police Station-

Surpura, District Bhind, in connection with Crime No.63/2025 registered in

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. He has not committed any offence. Except the offences registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, other offences are bailable. The injures sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that case of the present appellant is at par with the case of co-accused Chhotu @ Brajmohan Ojha, who has since been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04/12/2025 passed in Cr.A. No. 10662/2025. He further submits that charge sheet has since been filed and further custodial interrogation of the appellant may not be required. The trial is likely to take long time to conclude. The appellant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds and on the ground of parity with the said co-accused Chhotu, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and appellant may be extended the benefit of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for State as well as counsel for the objector opposed the appeal on the ground that another co-accused namely Alok Sharma bail application has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06/11/2025 passed in Cr.A. No. 10626/2025. Further argument is that by taking through prosecution version, the case of the present appellant is not at parity with the case of the co-accused Chhotu @ Brajmohan Ojha and prayed for its dismissal.

6. Upon considering the aforesaid, so far as rejection of the bail application of the co-accused namely Alok Sharma is concerned, he suffered rejection when the investigation was under progress, but now charge sheet has since been filed on 18/12/2025 before the concerned court. The act of the present appellant is not different with the act of the bail out co-accused Chhotu since both of them forced the complainant to consume urine from the bottle. The initial version of the written complaint does not absolutely distinguish between acts attributed to different accused persons.

7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial will take time to conclude and the charge sheet has since been filed and on the basis of parity with the said co-accused Chhotu, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this appeal stands allowed and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent sur