Ramanpreet Singh @ Vinni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to ve referred as the 'Act of 1989')assailing the order dated 13.07.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jabalpur in B.A. No.2042/2026, whereby the application preferred by the appellant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail was rejected on the ground that a statutory bar contained in Sections 18 of the Act of 1989, is attracted.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Crime No.346/2026 was registered at Police Station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur for offences punishable under Sections 333, 119(1), 296(b), 351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989. The allegation is that the complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, was assaulted, abused by taking his caste name and criminally intimidated by the accused persons. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and the present appellant came to be implicated.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated and his name does not appear in the FIR. It is submitted that his implication is solely based upon the memorandum statement of the co-accused and, therefore, there is no legally admissible material connecting him with the crime. It is further argued that no prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out and consequently the embargo under Sections 18 of the Act of 1989 would not apply. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2018) 6 SCC 454; Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Others, (2020) 4 SCC 727 ; Javed Raza Shroff v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 (1) Bom C.R. (Cri.) 352 ; Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar & Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 799; Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 ; Yajuvendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, Criminal Appeal No.7824 of 2024 and Charanjeet Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, Criminal Appeal No.5141 of 2025, to contend that where no prima facie case under the Act is made out, anticipatory bail can be granted.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant has not been implicated merely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused. It is argued that witness Ravi Kumar subsequently named the appellant in his statement and attributed participation to him in the incident. It is further submitted that the FIR and the statements of other witnesses consistently disclose that besides the named accused, another person had also participated in the occurrence and the investigation identifies the present appellant as that person. Therefore, prima facie material exists attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the statutory bar against anticipatory bail squarely applies.

Learned counsel for the complainant by filing reply supported the case of the appellant and has no objection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record.

At the stage of considering an appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Court is only required to examine whether the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie commission of offences under the Act 1989. The contention that the appellant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement cannot be accepted. The case diary reveals that witness Ravi Kumar subsequently named the appellant and attributed participation to him in the incident. Apart from his statement, the FIR and the statements of other prosecution witnesses also indicate that one more person had actively participated in the occurrence. Thus, the implication of the appellant is supported by independent material collected during investigation and is not confined to the memorandum of the co-accused alone.

The judgments relied upon by the appellant are clearly distinguishable on facts. In Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra), Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), Javed Raza Shroff (supra) and other mentioned above, the respective Courts either found that no prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act was disclosed, the allegations were vague or motivated, there was absence of specific material against the accused, or the facts arose out of entirely different circumstances such as consensual relationship, neighbourhood dispute, social media publication or absence of any overt act. In the present case, however, the investigation discloses specific material against the appellant. Consequently, none of the aforesaid judgments advance the case of the appellant. The material available in the case diary prima facie discloses commission of offences punishable under the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989. Once such prima facie material exists, the statutory embargo contained in Sections 18 of the Act of 1989 becomes operative and no ground is made out for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has committed no illegality in rejecting the appellant's application for anticipatory bail. The impugned order dated 13.07.2026 does not warrant any interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the Act 1989. Consequently, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.