IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12555 of 2025

VIMAL KUMAR

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Virendra Sharma, learned Senior counsel with Shri Jitendra

Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

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

Shri Vikaram Singh Bule, learned counsel for the respondent [OBJ].

ORDER sexual exploitation.

This criminal appeal is under Section 14 A(2) of SC/St (POA), Act,

1989 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2025 in BA No.199/2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Ujjain whereby the application for anticipatory bail of the appellant in connection with Crime No.443/2025, registered at Police Station Mahidpur, Ujjain under Section 74, 75(1)(i), 172(2) of BNS, 2023, under Section 9(e)/10, 11(i)/12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 3(1)(w-i) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA), Act,

1989, has been rejected.

2. Facts in brief are that the alleged offence was registered on the

written complaint of prosecutrix belonging to Scheduled Caste Community against the accused who does not belong to SC/ST Community regarding

3. The learned trial court rejected the application recording the finding that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is attracted in the present case.

4. Challenging the impugned order, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that the the appellant is innocent, he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The appellant is apprehending his arrest . Hence, the appellant is entitled to get anticipatory bail.

5. Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector have opposed the prayer by contending that on the basis of allegations and material available on record, there is bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

6. Perused the record.

7. After going through the allegations in the case diary, prima facie it appears that the offence punishable u/S.3(1)(w-i) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is made out and thus, the statutory bar contained u/S. 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 comes in way of appellant.

8. In view of above, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant but since none of the offences attract punishment more than seven years of imprisonment, the arrest can be effected only if the appellant does not cooperate in the investigation process.

9. Thus, considering the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 , it is directed that in offences involving punishment upto seven years imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the petitioner does not cooperate in the investigation. The appellant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the appellant cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise. For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated below:-

“7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as t