Moh. Shafi @ Shefu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Gajendra Singh, J

This criminal appeal filed under section 14A (2) of of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which is preferred by appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2026 in B.A. No.188/2026 by Special Judge (SC & ST (POA) Act, Ujjain arising out of crime No.24/2026 registered at P.S.-Ghattiya, District Ujjain (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 64(1), 351(3) of BNS, and 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant apprehended on 21.01.2026 has been rejected.

The appellant has been apprehended for committing penetrative sexual assault with a woman of 50 years belonging to Scheduled Caste community, whereas the appellant accused does not belong to SC/ST community. On 20.01.2026, when prosecutrix was sitting at Garoth road highway bridge and prosecutrix expressed that she had no money to pay the fare of the vehicles then appellant accused give her the lift and took her to the bushes near the bank of village Dhabla Rehvari and committed penetrative sexual assault. On raising the alarm caused by the prosecutrix, three persons rescued the woman and called the police and the appellant/accused was apprehended at the spot.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further argued that this is a consensual matter. Hence, prayed for release of appellant.

Heard.

Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed this criminal appeal and prayed for dismissal of the same.

Perused the record.

At this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that looking to the seriousness of the allegations, the manner of commission of the offence, and the material collected during investigation, no ground is made out for grant of bail. Considering the nature of allegations and gravity of offence, the trial court did not commit any illegality while rejecting the bail of the appellant. The impugned order is just and proper and no case for interference is made out.

In view of above, the present criminal appeal stands dismissed.