Pritam Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Gajendra Singh, J

This is first criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is preferred against the order dated 24.01.2026 in B.A. No.72/2026 by Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, Dewas, whereby the application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for bail on behalf of appellant apprehended on 19.11.2025 in connection with Crime No.1099/2025 registered at police station- Bank Note Press, Dewas (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 108, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989 has been rejected.

Facts of the case are that Crime No.1099/2025 registered at Police Station Bank Note Press, Dewas after the victim a woman belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and a renowned player of Jiu Jitsu committed suicide at 1:00 PM on 26.08.2025 at her residence situated at Dewas and a Merg No.110/2025 was registered at Police Station Bank Note Press Dewas and after enquiry, the FIR bearing Crime No.1099/2025 was registered against the present appellant and co-accused Vijendra Singh Kharsodiya. Final report has been submitted and SCATR No.03/2026 is pending before the Special Court.

The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the deceased has intimated to her parents that she is being harassed by the present appellant and due to mental harassment by present appellant she committed suicide by hanging herself. The trial Court has distinguished the matter of Vijendra Kharsodiya with present appellant and referring to X vs. State of Rajasthan: 2024 INSC 909 in which it is held that ordinarily in a serious offences like rape, murder, decoity etc., once the trial is commenced and the prosecution starts examining the witnesses, the Courts, it be the trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused, rejected the application.

Challenging the impugned order this appeal has been filed on the ground that present appellant accused did not commit the alleged offence, and the appellant/accused was maliciously confined and arrested for the aforesaid mentioned alleged offences by the prosecution. Co-accused Vijendra Kharsodiya has been granted benefit of bail. The present appellant was performing his professional duties as the Vice President of the M.P. Jiu-Jitsu Association and there was no malice at part of the appellant. There was no material on record that the appellant has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Telephonic conversations does not discloses the purpose of the conversation and assuming facts beyond scope is unjust and bad in law. The trial will take long time and till that to keep the appellant/accused behind the bar will defeat the fundamental right of freedom, life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future.

The present appellant was in touch with the deceased merely to support her during time of distress and has always maintained the professional relationship. Appellant/accused is a reputed person having roots in the society and if the appellant/accused will remain in judicial custody for the long term then the appellant/accused have to suffer irreparable loss and the reputation of appellant/accused as well as his family will be spoiled in the society. He will obey all the terms and conditions which may be imposed against the appellant/accused. Criminal antecedents registered in the form of Crime No.27/2014 and 281/2017 registered at Police Station Hatpipaliya and Crime No.316/2008 registered at Bank Note Press, Dewas has been resulted in acquittal.

Counsel for the respondent/State opposed this criminal appeal and prays for dismissal of the same referring to the call details record collected during the investigation in the case and submitted that on 26.08.2025, there were telephonic calls. Just before the committing of suicide there was a call of the appellant accused. Present appellant does not belongs to scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe community and the matter of co-accused Vijendra Kharsodiya, who himself belongs to scheduled caste community is not identical in the light of the material collected during the investigation, therefore, he can not take the benefit of parity.

Counsel for the objector also opposed the criminal appeal and prays for dismissal of the same.

Perused the case diary.

As per the material collected against the appellant accused, he got acquainted with the deceased in the year 2022-23 when deceased was elected as the Secretary of M.P. Jiu-Jitsu Association and the appellant was the Vice President of that Association. As per the oral dying declaration of the deceased collected through Sakshi Jagariya, appellant accused crossed all the limits with his treatment towards the deceased. The material collected revealed that deceased was susceptive with the appellant that she used all precautions that her travel itinerary could not be leaked to present appellant. There was continuous surveillance of the appellant/accused regarding the location of the deceased. His matter is not identical with the case of Vijendra Kharsodiya. The appellant/accused is not entitled for bail either on merit or on parity. Hence, the trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the bail application of the present appellant. The impugned order is just and proper and no case for interference is made out.

In view of above, present criminal appeal stands dismissed.