Mohhamad Shafi @ Shefu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Gajendra Singh, J

This 2nd (repeat) 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 06.05.2026 in SCATR.46/2026 by Special Judge (SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 District 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.

First appeal of the appellant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 24.03.2026 passed in CRA No.2426/2026 in which the order dated 23.02.2026 in B.A. No.188/2026 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Ujjain was challenged with following observations:-

"5. 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."

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.

Now, this second criminal appeal for bail has been preferred on the ground that victim has been examined as PW-1 and she has not supported the case of the prosecution, she has been declared hostile and she has denied the factum of rape. There is no possibilities that the appellant/accused will temper or influence the witness. Hence, prays for bail.

Perused the record.

In this case, the appellant/accused was caught hold at the place of incident by the crowd gathered at the alarm of prosecutrix/victim PW-1. The DNA report is positive demonstrating the involvement of the appellant/accused in the act. Before the JMFC, Ujjain, the victim PW-1 has stated the incident in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023. Thereafter, the ground of hostility of the witness itself suggest the tempering of the witness. The hostility of the witness cannot be a new ground for grant of bail to the appellant/accused. Even if any opinion is taken on the basis of evidence given by hostile witness it amounts to evaluate the evidence by this Court, which is impermissible while deciding the bail application. Accordingly, this second criminal appeal is dismissed.