High CourtsSingle Bench

Sourabh Sahu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 MP CK 0268

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 480(3), 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 296, 351(2) · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3)
RESULT
Allowed/ Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 2331 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

9 paragraphs · 410 words

Gajendra Singh, J

1.

This is first criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is preferred against the order dated 26.02.2026 in SCATR No.164/2025 by Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, Indore, 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.405/2025 registered at police station- Heeranagar, Indore for the offence punishable under sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 296, 351(2) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989

2.

The incident occurred on account of the victim (PW-1) parking his Activa scooter in front of the grocery shop of the appellant/accused.

3.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. The appellant/accused has been in custody for a period of five and a half months. The investigation is substantially complete. The conclusion of trial will likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.

4.

Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

5.

Learned counsel for the victim has opposed the appeal on the ground that the offence is serious in nature. It is submitted that the victim sustained a severe injury to the thumb of his right hand, which required stitching. It is further submitted that the incident was captured in the CCTV footage of a house situated near the place of occurrence.

6.

Considering the fact that the appellant/accused has been in custody for a period of five and a half months, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal filed by the appellant. Consequently, by setting aside the impugned order of the Trial Court, the appeal is hereby allowed, without commenting anything on the merits of the matter. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular presence during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C./ 480(3) of BNSS. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

7.

With the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and stands disposed of.

Certified copy, as per Rules.