MUKESH KUMAWAT V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS 2025:MPHC-IND:28685:

DATE: 26/09/2025

COURT: High Court of Madhya Pradesh

BENCH: Justice Gajendra Singh

FACTS:

On 29 March 2025, Crime No. 99/2025 was registered at Police Station Sardarpur, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, based on a complaint by a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category who worked as a school teacher. She alleged that on 6 March 2025, while conducting examinations at the school, the appellants, who identified themselves as journalists questioned her about classifying a student as private. When she explained that it was due to attendance rules, the appellants began making videos in the school premises. Later, at around 1:00 p.m., when she was walking home, the appellants allegedly stopped her on a bike, demanded Rs.1 lakh, and threatened to circulate a video that would defame her.

She further alleged that when she objected, one appellant slapped her, causing injuries, while the other hit her in the abdomen with his fists and threatened to publish defamatory content on social media. They also allegedly used caste-based abusive remarks and humiliated her in public view. Due to fear and depression, she delayed filing her complaint but later registered the FIR after support from her family. The appellants, who do not belong to SC/ST categories, applied for anticipatory bail, but the Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, Dhar, rejected their plea citing the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act.

ISSUES:

The central issues before the High Court were whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence under the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, thereby attracting the statutory bar under Section 18 against granting anticipatory bail, and whether the appellants’ claim that the complaint was false, malicious, and intended to harass them could justify relief under Section 438 of the CrPC.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the trial court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail. The Court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, that the bar under Section 18 applied, and therefore the appellants were not entitled to anticipatory bail.

The Court reasoned that while precedents such as Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Ummed Singh v. State of M.P. had clarified that anticipatory bail can be considered if no prima facie case under the SC & ST (POA) Act is made out, the present case stood on a different footing. The allegations in the FIR, when taken at face value, indicated that the appellants, who were not members of SC or ST, intentionally used caste-based abusive remarks against the complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste, in a place within public view, coupled with threats, extortion, and physical assault. These allegations satisfied the basic ingredients required under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Act.

The Court further noted that the appellants’ defence that they were acting as journalists investigating alleged corruption by the complainant, could not be examined at the stage of anticipatory bail, since that would amount to entering into an evidentiary assessment or mini-trial, which is impermissible. The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (2025), which held that only the FIR’s contents need to be evaluated at this stage to determine whether a prima facie case exists. It found that the appellants’ use of the term “Chindi Chor” (petty thief) in a published news article and the threats of defamation and violence inferred an intention to insult and humiliate the complainant on caste lines in public view. Thus, the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act applied, making anticipatory bail unavailable.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the strict application of Section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which bars the grant of anticipatory bail when a prima facie offence is made out. The Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that at the bail stage, the Court must confine itself to the allegations in the FIR rather than evaluating the merits of the defence or conducting a mini-trial. Since the complaint contained specific accusations of caste-based insults made in public view, coupled with physical assault, extortion, and threats, the Court held that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Act were satisfied. The Court underscored that the statutory protection to members of Scheduled Castes cannot be diluted merely because the accused claimed to be acting in their professional capacity as journalists.

The judgment also reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is subject to statutory restrictions when special legislations like the SC & ST Act are involved. By relying on precedents such as Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (2025), the Court clarified that the sole question at this stage is whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case; if so, the statutory bar applies. The appellants’ plea that the FIR was false, malicious, or part of a vendetta could only be examined during trial, not at the pre-trial bail stage. Thus, the decision affirms the legislature’s intent to provide robust safeguards against caste-based atrocities by ensuring that accused persons cannot preemptively shield themselves from arrest where prima facie evidence exists.