01Facts
The appellant was arrested in connection with a case alleging that, during a rally, he and others abused members of a Scheduled Caste community and fired shots, causing the death of Sanjay Jatav and injuries to Ranu Jatav.
¶ 3–4 · p. 1The appellant faced charges under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
¶ 3–4 · p. 1After the Special Judge dismissed his bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
¶ 1 · p. 1He argued that the material witnesses, including the eyewitnesses and injured witness, had turned hostile, that he had been in custody since 15 April 2025, and that the trial would take time to conclude.
¶ 5 · pp. 1–2The State opposed the appeal.
¶ 6 · p. 202Issues
i.Whether the appellant should be granted bail in the appeal against the Special Judge’s order refusing bail, particularly given that the material witnesses had turned hostile.
¶ 1, 5, 8 · pp. 1–3ii.Whether the anticipated duration of the trial supported granting bail in the circumstances of the case.
¶ 8 · p. 303Law Applied
Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the Special Judge’s order; Section 483 of the BNSS was the provision under which the appellant’s bail application had been made.
¶ 1 · p. 1The Court also recorded that the victim had been informed of the appeal in compliance with Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.
¶ 2 · p. 1No precedent or broader bail test was expressly cited; the Court assessed the appeal in light of the case’s attending facts and circumstances.
¶ 8 · p. 3Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 103Section 109Section 351Section 191Section 190
04Reasoning
The Court considered that all material witnesses, including eyewitnesses and the injured witness, had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case.
¶ 8 · p. 3It also noted that the trial would take time to conclude.
¶ 8 · p. 3On those circumstances, and without commenting on the merits, the Court concluded that bail was appropriate.
¶ 8 · p. 305Holding
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order refusing bail, and directed the appellant’s release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
¶ 8 · p. 3Release was subject to conditions, including cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, avoiding similar offences and unnecessary adjournments, and not leaving India without prior permission.
¶ 9 · pp. 3–4Original Court PDF
Girraj GurjarvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
