MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Government Servant, Says SC/ST Act Not Attracted as Accused Is Also ST

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a government servant accused of assisting in the alleged abduction of a minor girl, observing that the State failed to verify crucial CCTV footage despite specific directions from the Court and that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, did not appear to apply against him as he himself belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community.

Justice Ramkumar Choubey passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by Mulam Singh Gond against the rejection of his anticipatory bail plea by the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act at Sagar. The appeal arose from an FIR registered at Kesali Police Station in Sagar district for offences under Sections 87 and 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (corresponding to Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC), along with provisions of the SC/ST Act.

According to the prosecution, the mother of the prosecutrix had initially lodged a missing person report. During the investigation, the prosecutrix stated that co-accused Sanju Patel had taken her in a white car allegedly driven by the appellant. She further alleged that she was subsequently taken to different locations where the co-accused sexually assaulted her. Based on her statement, a criminal case was registered against the accused persons.

Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Manan Agrawal argued that the appellant had been falsely implicated merely because the vehicle allegedly used in the incident belonged to him. It was submitted that co-accused Sanju Patel had borrowed the vehicle on the pretext of dropping his mother and that the appellant later discovered that a girl had allegedly been transported in the same vehicle.

Counsel informed the Court that the appellant had promptly submitted representations to the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police on March 31, 2026, requesting verification of CCTV footage from relevant locations. He also claimed that he was engaged in official examination and tabulation duties at the relevant time.

The defence further contended that the appellant belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community and was serving in government employment, reducing any possibility of absconding or interfering with the investigation. The appellant also expressed willingness to cooperate with the probe.

Opposing the plea, Government Advocate Rakesh Kesharwani submitted that the appellant was specifically named in the FIR and that the prosecutrix had clearly stated he was driving the vehicle when she was taken away. Advocate Shubham Mishra appeared for the objector in the matter.

While examining the record, the High Court noted that it had earlier directed the State on May 8, 2026, to verify the documents produced by the appellant and examine the CCTV footage referred to in his representations. A further opportunity was granted on May 15, 2026. However, despite these directions, the State failed to place any verification report before the Court regarding either the CCTV footage or the documents submitted by the appellant, including his caste certificate.

The Court observed that the caste certificate available on record indicated that the appellant belonged to the “Goud” Scheduled Tribe community. Consequently, it held that the provisions of the SC/ST Act did not appear to be attracted against him.

The Court further noted that the only allegation against the appellant was that he had driven the vehicle in which the prosecutrix was allegedly transported. It also emphasized that the police had not verified the CCTV footage which, according to the Court, could have been the “best evidence” to determine whether the appellant was actually driving the vehicle.

Allowing the appeal, Justice Choubey remarked, “Despite a clear representation made by appellant to the police on 31.03.2026 and, after seeking adjournment from this Court, respondent/State has utterly failed to submit the report in respect to CCTV footage examination.” The Court concluded that the circumstances justified granting pre-arrest protection.

Accordingly, the Court directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount and complying with the conditions prescribed under law.

Case Title: Mulam Singh Gond v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: May 18, 2026

Bench: Justice Ramkumar Choubey