Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dipak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5322
1 MCRC-6202-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6202 of 2026
DIPAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma-GA appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-
1].
Shri Dharmendra Yadav, Advocate for the respondent/objector.
ORDER
1] They are heard. Perused the documents filed on record. 2] This is the applicant's first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he / she is implicated in connection with Crime No.217/2025 registered at Police Station Sondwa, District Alirajpur (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2)/127(3)/64(2)(J)/64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and sections 3(1)(W)(i)/3(2)(w)(ii)/3(2)(v)/3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The applicant is in custody since 23.08.2025.
3] Allegation against the applicant is of abduction and rape.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 2/27/2026 12:00:15 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5322 2 MCRC-6202-2026 4] On the last date of hearing, counsel for the respondent State as also the objector had raised an objection that since the impugned order has been passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act, hence, the applicant ought to have filed an appeal under section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and thus, the application is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
5] Counsel for the respondent/State, as also for the objector, have submitted that the prosecutrix was underage, and she has made clear allegation against the applicant regarding rape; thus, the application deserves to be dismissed.
6] In rebuttal, counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court at the main seat, Jabalpur, in the case of Pramod Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in CRA.No.5189/2020 to submit that since the offence involves both the provisions of law, viz, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 & the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, however, as per the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court at principle seat Jabalpur, the only course open to the applicant is to file a bail application, as the POCSO Act was enacted earlier and would override the same.
7] Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the age of the prosecutrix is disputed and she resided with the applicant for 7-8 days. It is also submitted that the applicant has been lodged in jail since 23.08.2025 and the final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient long time.Hence, it Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 2/27/2026 12:00:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5322 3 MCRC-6202-2026 is submitted that the bail application be allowed and he be released on bail.
8] Counsel for the respondent/State, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the case diary is not available.
9] Counsel for the objector has also opposed the prayer. 10] Heard. On perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, it is found that the prosecutrix, on 14.8.2025, first went to Sondwa at around 10.00 AM, and thereafter boarded a bus at 10.30 AM from Sondwa to Surat where she reached at around 5.30 PM, and the applicant also came to take her, she resided with him for around 7-8 days, and in the meantime, the applicant had also sexual intercourse although, it is stated that it was against her will and he used to lock her up while he went out, but the aforesaid conduct of the prosecutrix of going on her own will from Sondwa to Surat, and residing with the applicant for around 7-8 days clearly reveals her consent, and in such circumstances, this court finds that the culpability of the applicant's act can only be decided after the evidence is led by the prosecution in the trial Court.
11] In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant's application deserves to be allowed.
12] Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance before the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 2/27/2026 12:00:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5322 4 MCRC-6202-2026 trial Court during trial with a condition that he / she shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. If the applicant is found to be involved in violation of any of the terms of this order, an application for cancellation of his bail may be filed before the Trial Court itself, who shall decide the same in accordance with law.
13] M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE das Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 2/27/2026 12:00:15 PM