IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12266 of 2025 MUBARIK Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Makbool Ahmad Mansoori - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rahul Solanki - GA for the State.

(Heard on: 16.01.2026)

(Delivered on: 22.01.2026)

ORDER This is first criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 04.12.2025 in BA No.1688/2025 (SCATR No.176 of 2025 (Annexure-P/1) by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Mandsaur whereby the application for bail of the appellant- MUBARIK who was apprehended on 01.11.2025 in connection with Crime No.451/2025 registered at P.S- Garot, District- Mandsaur under sections 69, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 read with sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) and

3(1)(w)(ii), of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 has been rejected.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant who does not belongs to SC/ST community came in contact with the prosecutrix, who belongs to the schedule community, when he was cultivating agricultural field belonging to the victim on lease & subjected to sexual intercourse/ exploitation on the false pretext of marriage. After sometime the victim started making distance from the appellant.The appellant threatened the victim that if she did not continue relation with her then he will kill the victim. Victim left her resident at village and came to reside at Mandsaur city. The appellant/accused traced her residence and also sexually exploit her at her residence at Mandsaur city and extended threat to kill her. On 29.10.2025 when one of the relative of victim came to the residence of victim then she apprised her about sexual exploitation & FIR was lodged on

30.10.2025 at P.S.- Garoth, District Mandsaur.

3. Trial court rejected the bail application of the appellant recording the findings that allegations against the appellant are serious in nature and material collected during the investigation are sufficient to connect the appellant with the offence.

4. Challenging the rejection of the bail application this criminal appeal is preferred on the ground that earlier a crime No.219/2025 under section 337, 340(2) of BNS, 2023 was registered against the present appellant. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded but prosecutrix stated that she has no physical relation with the appellant. The said statement demolishes the whole prosecution story. The provisions of sections 69, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 read with sections 3(2)(v), 3(2) (va) and 3(1)(w)(ii), of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 are no applicable in this case. "Bail is the rule, jail is the exception". In crime No.219/2025 the appellant was arrested on 24.05.2025 and on the same day, certain villagers submitted a representation before the SDO, P.S. Garoth, District Mandsaur, seeking demolition of the appellant’s house. Apprehending illegal demolition, the appellant’s wife preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this court on 28.05.2025 and vide order dated 22.06.2025 in WP No.19704/2025 the authorities were directed to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in matters relating to demolition of structures. The directions were not followed and demolition was carried on 10.06.2025. Appellant filed contempt petition No.3868/2025 before this Court on 05.07.2025 and vide order dated 14.07.2025 notices were issued to the respondents including SHO, P.S.-Garot. Official threatened to withdraw the contempt petition on 01.12.2025. Upon refusal to withdraw the contempt petition present offence of crime No.451/2025 was registered. He relied upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and filed Annexure-P/2 copy of FIR of crime No.219/2025 registered at P.S.-Garoth District Mandsaur. The application filed against the appellant as Annexure-P/3. Cop