Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mubarik Shiekh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32889
1 CRA-6068-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6068 of 2025
MUBARIK SHIEKH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shikha Singh Baghel- P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri Arihant Tiwari-Advocate with Shri Vidit Shah, advocate for the
objector.
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2 . Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.304/2025 registered at Police Station- Thana Kotwali, Khandwa, District- Khandwa for the offences punishable under Section294, 498A, 313, 494 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3 . Prosecution story in brief is that appellant repeatedly established physical relation with prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is posted as constable in police department. After referring to suicide note as well as prosecutrix's statement, it is urged that therein prosecutrix has not leveled any Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 21-07-2025 17:33:24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32889 2 CRA-6068-2025 allegation whatsoever against the appellant. She stated that appellant is keeping her properly. There is no allegation of harassment, torture etc. against the appellant. It is also urged that prosecutrix and appellant got married under Special Marriage Act on 29.07.2020. It is also urged that appellant came to know that presecutrix was having relation with one constable, then, some dispute took place between appellant and prosecutrix. There are no criminal antecedents of appellant. No offence under Section 313 of IPC is made out. Further, after referring to provision of Section 3(i)(r) and Section 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (PA) Act, it is also urged that no incident has been occurred in public view and there is no humiliation. Therefore, offence under Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (PA) Act is not made out. With respect to aforesaid, he has relied upon Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1036 . Further, after referring to principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2011 SC 312 it is urged that the appellant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel for the objector as well as learned counsel for the respondent/State, while opposing the anticipatory bail application, submits that prosecutrix repeatedly requested appellant for a meeting with appellant's parents but appellant did not arrange for prosecutrix to meet his parents. Therefore, prosecutrix went to the house of appellant. There, appellant's mother and sister abused and assaulted prosecutrix. It is urged that appellant got transferred to Jhabua but appellant did not take prosecutrix to Jhabua. Further, through instagram, prosecutrix came to know that appellant had Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 21-07-2025 17:33:24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32889 3 CRA-6068-2025 married and he has twins from another marriage. Further, after referring to principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Appeal (Crl.) No. 1248/2005 (State Through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi) decided on 26.09.2005, it is urged that appellant being a constable in the police department, there is every possibility of tampering of evidence. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
6. Perusal of the record of the case reveals that primarily appellant has referred and relied on documents that have been filed along with IA No. 17334/2025 but the same are not part of case diary. Present application has been filed for anticipatory bail Therefore, at this stage, documents forming part of case diary are only required to be looked into.
7. Having regard to contents of FIR as well as prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
8. Therefore, this bail application under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of appellant Mubarik Shekh stands dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE L.R. Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 21-07-2025 17:33:24