Madhya Pradesh High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Bail granted where accused’s alleged role was limited to facilitating confinement and prolonged trial was likely.

Jheeguriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: August 10, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Bail granted where accused’s alleged role was limited to facilitating confinement and prolonged trial was likely.. Jheeguriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellant preferred a first criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 22 July 2026 by which the Special Judge (Atrocities), Sheopur, dismissed his bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Source reference: para. 1

The appellant had been arrested on 3 July 2026 in Crime No. 224/2026 registered at Police Station Vijaypur, District Sheopur, for offences under Sections 70(1), 87, 127(2), 351(3) and 506 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

Source reference: para. 3

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Balram Jadon brought the prosecutrix to the appellant’s house on 27 June 2026 and that the appellant facilitated her wrongful confinement and repeated rape by leaving the premises.

Source reference: para. 4

The appellant contended that the prosecutrix had not alleged that he committed rape or any other sexual act against her, and that his implication was based only on the alleged provision of the house.

Source reference: para. 4
02

Issues

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, despite the allegations arising under the BNS and the SC/ST Act?

Source reference: paras. 1, 3, 6–7

Whether, having regard to the appellant’s alleged limited role, the prosecutrix’s statements and subsequent affidavit, the delay in lodging the FIR, the period of custody, and the anticipated duration of the trial, the impugned order rejecting bail required interference?

Source reference: paras. 4–7
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides for an appeal against an order granting or refusing bail by a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court constituted under the Act.

Source reference: para. 1

It considered the appellant’s bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail in appropriate cases.

Source reference: para. 1

The Court also took note of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act concerning notice to, and participation of, the victim in proceedings under the Act; the State confirmed compliance with that requirement.

Source reference: para. 2

The governing bail principle applied was that bail may be granted after considering the accusations, the material in the case diary, the applicant’s role, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of interference with witnesses or evasion of justice, without conducting a detailed examination of the merits.

Source reference: paras. 5–8
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the appellant’s contention that the prosecutrix had not attributed any act of rape to him and that his alleged role was limited to providing or leaving the house where the principal offence was allegedly committed.

Source reference: para. 4

It also took into account the appellant’s custody since 3 July 2026, the asserted delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecutrix’s subsequent affidavit and no-objection to bail, and the submission that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Source reference: paras. 4–4.1

Although the State opposed bail on the basis of the allegations and material collected, the Court found that the attending circumstances, particularly the anticipated delay in conclusion of the trial, justified release on bail.

Source reference: paras. 5–8

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case and imposed conditions intended to secure the appellant’s cooperation and prevent intimidation, inducement, harassment, or contact with the prosecutrix and complainant party.

Source reference: paras. 5–8
05

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 22 July 2026 rejecting bail, and directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring compliance with the bond, cooperation with the investigation and trial, non-interference with witnesses, abstention from similar offences, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and prohibition on leaving India without prior permission.

Source reference: para. 8(i)–(vi)

The appellant was further directed not to cause embarrassment or harassment to the complainant party or prosecutrix and not to move in their vicinity.

Source reference: para. 8(vii)

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.

Source reference: para. 9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

8 provisions across 4 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

JheeguriyavsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · August 10, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment