IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1980 of 2025

MISS X

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Yogesh Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rahul Solanki - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

HEARD ON : 23.09.2025

DELIVERED ON : 24.12.2025

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,

1989 is preferred for cancellation of the order dated 19.09.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.10501/2023 by this Court whereby exercising the jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 the respondent No.2 apprehended in connection with Crime No.394/2023 registered at Police Station Mhow, Indore under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 294 & 506 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 on 07.07.2023 was ordered to be released on bail setting aside the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 Indore, in Bail Application

No.2620/2023 dated 18.07.2023.

02. The prayer is on the ground that the respondent No.2 was directed

to observe the condition mentioned under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.,

1973 but violating the conditions of bail the respondent is extending threat by messages and is making the threat to kill the appellant and his family members. He make viral her photographs. She has lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Mhow, District Indore in the form of Crime No.70/2025 under Sections 79 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. The appellant filed the documents Annexure-A/2 to A/5 in support of the appeal.

03. A detailed reply has been filed raising the objection of maintainability of the present criminal appeal on the ground that the appeal against the order of Special Court, whether granting or refusing bail, must be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the order appealed against and in no circumstance whatsoever can any appeal be entertained after the expiry of one hundred and eighty days. This statutory prescription is couched in negative terms and amounts to an absolute bar upon the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an appeal filed beyond the outer limit of one hundred and eighty days. The bail order assailed was passed on 19.09.2023, whereas the present appeal has been instituted much after the lapse of the statutorily permissible period. Even taking into account the proviso permitting condonation up to ninety days, the filing of the instant appeal is hopelessly time-barred. The appellant has failed to disclose any sufficient cause to justify condonation of delay.

04. Another objection was raised on the ground that bail in favour of the answering respondent was granted by this Court under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 itself which is a form of an appeal and the present appeal for recall of order passed earlier in an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 has also been filed under Section 14A of the Act. Thus, the order passed by this Court in appeal is sought to be recalled again by filing an appeal under Section 14A which is not maintainable. An appeal for cancellation of bail cannot be maintained as it amounts to review or re-examine the correctness of an earlier appellate order under Section 14A. Such a course is not contemplated by law and would amount to an impermissible exercise of review in the guise of an appeal, which is barred. The legislative intent of Section 14A is to provide a one-time statutory remedy against orders of the Special Court, and not to permit repeated challenges to bail orders already adjudicated by this Court.

05. In view of Section 20 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 which contains a non obstante clause and provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith co