CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rahul vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 MP CK 0266

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gajendra Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(v), 14A(2) · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 61(2), 103(1), 238
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 2974 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 · 257 words

Gajendra Singh, J

1.

This is third criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is preferred against the order dated 12.03.2026 in SCATR No.176/2024 by Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, Khargone, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by the appellant seeking bail in connection with Crime No.314/2024 registered at police station- Oon, Khargone for the offence punishable under section 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

2.

Earlier, first application (appeal) was rejected on 19.05.2025 passed in CRA No.4005/2025. Thereafter, the appellant approached Apex Court by way of filing an SLP (CRI.) No.9518/2025 challenging the order dated 19.05.2025, but the same was dismissed on 06.11.2025.

3.

Thereafter, again an appeal (2nd) was filed and the same was also dismissed by this Court on 10.03.2026 passed in CRA No.1499/2026.

4.

Now, again, the appellant has approached before the Court on the ground that two witnesses namely Mahesh (PW-1) has examined on 05.12.2025 and Manoj (PW-2) has examined on 23.02.2026 and they have not supported the prosecution version. Hence, prays that the appellant be enlarged on bail.

5.

Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant/objector have opposed the prayer.

6.

Considering the overall material on record and the role played by the appellant, hostility of these two witnesses does not constitute the change of circumstances for allowing this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.