High CourtsSingle Bench

Rahul Rawat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 June 2026 · Citation: (2026) 06 MP CK 0540

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(v), 14(A)(2) · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 61(2), 103(1), 109, 126(2), 296 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 27
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 4873 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

8 paragraphs · 348 words

Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J

1.

This first criminal appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the SC/ST Act") filed by appellant against the order dated 29/05/2026 passed by Special Judge (SC & ST Act) Shivpuri, whereby, the application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. has been rejected.

2.

The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 221/2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 296, 103(1), 109, 126(2). 3(5), 61(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 25/27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Narwar, District Shivpuri.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He further submits that main accused Beerendra Koli, who caused injury to the deceased as well as co-accused Trilok, who was on spot with Beerendra Koli have already been granted bail by this Court. He also submits that present appellant Rahul Rawat was made accused on the basis of memorandum statement of Beerendra Koli and he has not committed any offence and his case is identical to the co-accused. Hence, on the ground of parity, counsel for appellant prayed to allow this appeal and grant of benefit of anticipatory bail to appellant.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the arguments advanced by them.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merits of the case, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in Section 482 of BNSS.

7.

With the aforesaid directions, the Present appeal stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.