High CourtsSingle Bench

Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 23 February 2026 · Citation: (2026) 02 MP CK 1817

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gajendra Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), 14(A)(2) · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 87, 64, 64(2)(m), 127(4), 351(3) · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 480(3)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1352 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 334 words

Gajendra Singh, J

1.

This is repeat third criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended by the Act of 2015) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST) POA, Act, Rajgarh, Bioara, M.P. in SCATR No.186/2025.

2.

The appellant is in custody since 27.07.2025 in connection with Crime No.355/2025 registered at Police Station- Rajgarh District Rajgarh under Section 87, 64, 64(2)(m), 127(4), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and under sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (P.A) Act, 1989.

3.

First criminal appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2025 and thereafter, second criminal appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.12.2025 in CRA No.11740/2025.

4.

Counsel for the Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no necessity for appellant's custodial interrogation. He further submits that witnesses are no appearing before the trial court for evidence. The investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. The conclusion of trial will likely to take long time, hence prays for release of the appellant on bail.

5.

Counsel for the State as well as objector opposes the criminal appeal.

6.

The proceedings of the trial court reveals that despite the continuous process the witnesses are not appearing before the trial court though victim was examined on 11.11.2025, therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the appellant- MANGILAL is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before that Court, as and when directed, during the pendency of trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 480(3) of the BNSS, 2023.