Madhya Pradesh High Court
Miss X vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764
1 CRA-1980-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1980 of 2025
MISS X
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Solanki - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
HEARD ON : 23.09.2025
DELIVERED ON : 24.12.2025
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is preferred for cancellation of the order dated 19.09.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.10501/2023 by this Court whereby exercising the jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 the respondent No.2 apprehended in connection with Crime No.394/2023 registered at Police Station Mhow, Indore under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 294 & 506 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 on 07.07.2023 was ordered to be released on bail setting aside the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 Indore, in Bail Application No.2620/2023 dated 18.07.2023.
02. The prayer is on the ground that the respondent No.2 was directed to observe the condition mentioned under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C., Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 2 CRA-1980-2025 1973 but violating the conditions of bail the respondent is extending threat by messages and is making the threat to kill the appellant and his family members. He make viral her photographs. She has lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Mhow, District Indore in the form of Crime No.70/2025 under Sections 79 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. The appellant filed the documents Annexure-A/2 to A/5 in support of the appeal.
03. A detailed reply has been filed raising the objection of maintainability of the present criminal appeal on the ground that the appeal against the order of Special Court, whether granting or refusing bail, must be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the order appealed against and in no circumstance whatsoever can any appeal be entertained after the expiry of one hundred and eighty days. This statutory prescription is couched in negative terms and amounts to an absolute bar upon the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an appeal filed beyond the outer limit of one hundred and eighty days. The bail order assailed was passed on 19.09.2023, whereas the present appeal has been instituted much after the lapse of the statutorily permissible period. Even taking into account the proviso permitting condonation up to ninety days, the filing of the instant appeal is hopelessly time-barred. The appellant has failed to disclose any sufficient cause to justify condonation of delay.
04. Another objection was raised on the ground that bail in favour of the answering respondent was granted by this Court under Section 14A of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 3 CRA-1980-2025 the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 itself which is a form of an appeal and the present appeal for recall of order passed earlier in an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 has also been filed under Section 14A of the Act. Thus, the order passed by this Court in appeal is sought to be recalled again by filing an appeal under Section 14A which is not maintainable. An appeal for cancellation of bail cannot be maintained as it amounts to review or re-examine the correctness of an earlier appellate order under Section 14A. Such a course is not contemplated by law and would amount to an impermissible exercise of review in the guise of an appeal, which is barred. The legislative intent of Section 14A is to provide a one-time statutory remedy against orders of the Special Court, and not to permit repeated challenges to bail orders already adjudicated by this Court.
05. In view of Section 20 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 which contains a non obstante clause and provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for time being in force, it is humbly submitted that the special procedure under Section 14A is self-contained and has overriding effect over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other enactment. Therefore, the present appeal has to be tested strictly within the four corners of Section 14A alone and not by reference to the general provisions of the Code. In cases arising under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 the provisions of Section 439(2) CrPC dealing with cancellation of bail or Section 437(3) CrPC imposing conditions are not attracted. The jurisdiction of this Court to deal with bail matters under the Act is confined exclusively Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 4 CRA-1980-2025 to Section 14A, which provides an appellate mechanism with strict limitation. The present attempt to invoke powers to Section 439(2) CrPC is beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the express legislative intent, as the scheme of the Act ousts the applicability of the general provisions of the CrPC to the extent of inconsistency. Hence, cancellation of bail as contemplated under Section 439(2) cannot be pressed into service in proceedings under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
06. Apart from the maintainability of the appeal, the appeal was opposed on merit also on the ground that the parameters for cancellation of bail are well settled, and unless it is demonstrated that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or indulging in further serious offences, the cancellation of bail cannot be ordered. Mere apprehensions and repetition of the allegations which were subject matter of consideration at the time of grant of bail cannot constitute valid-grounds for cancellation. The answering respondent submits that he has been strictly complying with all conditions of bail as imposed by this Court. He has remained present before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and has not indulged in any act of non-cooperation or abscondence. There has not been a single instance of breach of the bail conditions. The prosecution has not been able to produce any material to establish that the answering respondent has attempted to tamper with evidence or to influence witnesses.
07. The allegations sought to be projected regarding messages and threats through WhatsApp and Telegram are false and fabricated. Even when Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 5 CRA-1980-2025 the police asked for the URL of the Messages and Telegram ID was not provided by the complainant and the same doesn't even belong to the respondent. The mobile number relied upon was already in possession and in use of the complainant since long before, and it is mischievously sought to be used against the answering respondent as the SIM of alleged mobile number was given to the complainant by answering respondent for use. The so-called Telegram ID does not belong to the answering respondent, and the allegations based upon it are concocted and without support of any URL. Even otherwise stray and unverified electronic messages cannot be elevated to the level of substantive proof of intimidation or threat so as to warrant cancellation of bail, particularly when the trial is continuing under the close supervision of the court. Even otherwise any of the alleged documents, WhatsApp chats, screenshots or electronic material relied upon by the applicant cannot be considered by this Court as admissible material in the absence of a mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 presently Section 63 of the BNSS, 2023. The attempt of the appellant to rely on uncertified electronic material is therefore legally untenable and deserves outright rejection.
08. The F.I.R. bearing Crime No.70/2025 was registered against the answering respondent under Sections 79 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, r/w Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 67(A) of the IT Act, 2000. The investigation has been completed, charge- sheet has been filed on 06.04.2025, and the answering respondent has been granted bail in that matter as well. Thus, the mere registration of another FIR Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 6 CRA-1980-2025 cannot by itself justify cancellation of bail already granted, especially when the competent court has itself found fit to enlarge the answering respondent on bail in that subsequent matter also. The answering respondent submits that he comes 'from a respectable background and has pursued a career in education and academics. He has completed B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering from Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, which is a reputed institution and thereafter completed Post graduation Diploma in Management. He is gainfully employed at Byju's, an established educational organisation, where he contributed in the academic field. The answering respondent has recently appeared in the UGC NET 2025 examination and qualified the same, and is in the process of pursuing his Ph.D. programme. He is also preparing for the RBI Grade B Examination with a view to secure a stable and progressive future. The answering respondent is deeply rooted in society. He is academically oriented and professionally engaged, and has no reason or incentive to misuse the liberty granted to him.
09. It is further submitted that the parents of the answering respondent are old aged and suffering from serious ailments. They are under regular treatment and are wholly dependent upon him for their day-to-day needs and medical expenses. The cancellation of bail would gravely prejudice not only the answering respondent but also his dependent parents, who have no other support system. The complainant herself has not been turning up before the trial court for recording of her statements despite repeated opportunities. The prosecution evidence has therefore been delayed not because of any act Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 7 CRA-1980-2025 attributable to the answering respondent but due to the non-cooperation of the complainant. In such circumstances, to seek cancellation of bail on unfounded allegations of misuse of liberty is wholly unjustified. The conduct of the complainant in avoiding her own examination further reinforces that there is no occasion for interference with the liberty of the answering respondent.
10. The counsel for the respondent/accused referred the cases of Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338, Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, and Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 he referred his educational job profile and career opportunities through career achievement as well as members in the form of Annexure- R/1.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Firstly, this Court is dealing with the objection regarding the maintainability of the present criminal appeal.
12. The maintainability has been assailed on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground of limitation, and secondly, on the ground that the cancellation of bail cannot be sought under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Before proceeding further, this court refers to the relevant part of the order dated 19.09.2023 through which the benefit of bail was extended to the respondent No.2/Kaustubh and through the present appeal, the cancellation of bail is sought. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.09.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.10501 of 2023 filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is being reproduced as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 8 CRA-1980-2025 "8. It is directed that appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
9. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become ineffective."
13. Now, the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is being reproduced as below:-
"(1)................
(2)...............
(3)When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 9 CRA-1980-2025 abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), [the Court shall impose the conditions,-
( a ) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter,
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence,and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.]"
14. In the case of Smt. Sunita Gandharva vs. State of M.P. & Anr; 2020 (3) MPLJ (Cri) 247, the following two questions were before the court for consideration, along with other questions. The relevant para 17 is being reproduced as under:-
"(i) Whether, High Court can entertain an Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 10 CRA-1980-2025 application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted in exercise of powers conferred under Section 14-A(2) of Atrocities Act ?;
(ii) Whether, the Court granting bail in an appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Atrocities Act can be recalled/cancelled as the order granting bail does not attain finality ?;"
15. After a detailed discussion, the questions were answered through Para No.32 and 33, which are being reproduced as under:-
"32. Court has power to recall an order which has been passed by it earlier. Power to issue or pass order includes its recalling.
33. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of complainant /aggrieved party is maintainable before the High Court which passed the order and order granting bail in an appeal can be recalled, of course in a fit case for recalling and that has to be seen as per the merits of the case. Therefore, the application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. preferred by the present applicant as complainant is maintainable against Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 11 CRA-1980-2025 respondent No. 2-accused."
16. In the case of Ajwar vs. Waseem and Another; 2024 SCC OnLine 974 it has been held that an application of cancellation of bail ought to be placed before the same judge who granted the bail, but in this case, the judge who granted the bail is not available due to retirement and the matter has been listed before this Court because as per roaster, the appeals under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is with this Couirt and the impugned order which is sought to be cancelled was passed under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and roaster under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is with another Bench.
17. The relief claimed by the appellant/victim is being in relation to the order passed by this Court and not by the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and the cancellation of bail is sought on the circumstances that occurred after the release of the accused on bail. Accordingly, the maintainability of prayer for cancellation of bail cannot be assailed on the ground of limitation.
18. When the bail has been granted under the exercise of power under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 by this Court, and the Court has the power to recall the order which has been passed earlier then the ground that power for cancellation of bail cannot be exercised under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is not tenable. Accordingly, the objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal have no substance and is hereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 12 CRA-1980-2025 Now come to the merits of the case.
19. Cancellation of bail is sought on the subsequent conduct of the respondent No.2/accused by violating the conditions of bail.
Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439(1) CrPC can be cancelled are enumerated below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;
(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
(f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;
(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;
(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial.
This Court may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.
20. The act of the respondent no.2/accused - Kaustubh @ Cheeku Bhattacharya are in the form of messages dated 11.11.2023, 22.11.2023, 26.11.2023 and 28.11.2023, which are being reproduced as verbatim:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 13 CRA-1980-2025 "The message on 11th November, 2023 Ye mera naya number hai Baat karna ho to kar lena Warna Block kar Dena Mai alag ho jaunga hamesha k Liye The message on 22nd November, 2023 Tera baap khud to bahut bada tees maar khan samajta hai Hahahahahaha Zamanat hone nahi dunga Bola tha Dekh uska baap Kaustubh Bahar aa gaya Ab uske andar jaane ki taiyari kar 2 fraud case aur lagne waale hai uspe Tujhe to Kuchh nahi karunga mai Lekin us Kutte ki 12 baja dunga The message on 26 th November, 2023 Tujhe bola tha k caste chhupa k rakhna kutiya Lekin Nahi manni to Nahi Maani Pehle meri Mummy ko call karke caste batayi Phir Ab SC ST ACT lagwa ke poori duniya ki bata di k Mera Chakkar ek Harijan Balai Ladki se tha Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 14 CRA-1980-2025 Mujhe ghar me Maa Baap k Saamne nazar Milane me sharam aa rahi hai ab Teri Caste ki wajah se Duniya to door ki Baat hai. Ghar walo k saamne hi Sharam se Mar jaane ka mann ho rha hai 10000 baar Mana Kiya tha Kutiya ko ki Caste kabhi expose na karey Nahi to mai shadi nahi karunga Lekin Kutiya ne Koi kasar nahi chhodhi meri maa chodne me Mere dost mera mazak bana rhe hai saale Bol rhe hai Harijan Balai Chamar set kar rkhi thi kaustubh ne Aapas me bhi wo log mera mazak bana rhe hai.
Mere saamne ghin waale mazak bana rhe h The message on 28 th November, 2023 Bas 2 din aur tere jawab ka wait karunga Teri bakchodi me Samay barbad karna band phir Jitna gaand me Dum ho Laga lena Maa ka Bhosda Phir saari duniya ki 30 tareekh k baad jaise abhi chup baithi h Waise hi aage b baithe rhna Mere paas aa mat jaana aagey meri Life kharab karne Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 15 CRA-1980-2025 4 saal k aapas khatam ho Gaye already mere Aur khud MPPSC de rahi hai saali laalchi Baap Ki Laalchi gareeb Beti Mera december ka exam nikal jata Poora barbaad kar diya Aur khud chali professor banne harami kahin Ki Jail aur Court se aage bhi Ek Cheez hoti hai Wo hai Jeevan aur Maut Us level pe pahuch jaunga mai agar 30 november ke baad tu shaqal dikhane aayi mere paas Tum teeno ko Jaan se maar ke Khud bhi zeher kha Lunga"
21. The messages through DP filed in the form of Annexure-A/5 exhibits the extreme negativity of the respondent/accused towards the victim.
22. Now this court considers the contention that the above material has not been supported with the affidavit under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (presently Section 63(4) of BSA, 2023) and further that the SIM provided by him to the victim has been misused and the URL of the Messages and Telegram ID was not provided by the complainant and the same does't even belong to the respondent.
23. The case of Gurcharan Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration); 1978 AIR 179 has laid down the test of "balance of probabilities" in evaluating bail cancellation. The standard of proof for bail cancellation is less strict than that for conviction.
24. In this case, the victim has approached this case with her affidavit Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 16 CRA-1980-2025 regarding the genuineness of the material filed in support of the application.
25. The allegations in the application gets further strength from the registration of Crime no.17/2025 at Police Station Mhow- Indore under Section 79, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
26. When this court examined the material placed before this Court by the prosecutrix/ victim on the standard of preponderance of probability or balance of probability then the violation of provision of Section 437(3)(b) and(c) is proved, warranting the cancellation of order dated 19.09.2023 passed in CRA No.10501/2023 by this Court. His academic carrier or, academic achievement or family issues does not give right to the respondent/accused to violate the conditions of bail, resulting the second victimization of victim of sexual assault belonging to Scheduled Caste Community.
27. If respondent/accused gets the benefit of bail with the undertaking to observe the conditions as mentioned under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C, 1973 than after releasing on bail he cannot raise the objection that this court cannot entertain the prayer for cancellation of bail for violation of condition enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C, 1973. Since the order of bail was passed by this Court then he cannot raise objection that appellant first ought to approach before the learned trial court, referring to the case of Dharam Singh Parihar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others; 2025 MPHC -JBP-7868 in which it was considered that a repeat appeal for bail Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37764 17 CRA-1980-2025 after dismissal of the appeal would not be maintainable even if the respondent/accused wishes to prefer the subsequent appeal before the High Court on any changed circumstance.
28. Accordingly, the bail granted by the order dated 19.09.2023 passed in CRA No.10501/2023 is hereby cancelled, and the order is recalled.
29. The respondent/accused has to surrender before the learned trial Court within fifteen days from today.
30. The In-Charge, Police Station-Mhow, Indore is directed take steps to ensure that the respondent/accused could not from further circulate photographs of the victim in possession with the respondent.
31. A copy be forwarded to the learned trial Court concerned as well as In-charge, Police Station-Mhow, Indore for necessary information and compliance.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) V. JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 24-Dec-25 9:41:49 PM