MP High Court Grants Relief To Narmadapuram Bar President, Finds No Prima Facie Evidence Under SC/ST Act

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Deepak Jain, the elected President of the District Bar Association, Narmadapuram, after observing that the prosecution's principal allegation was contradicted by Call Detail Records (CDRs) and that no prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out against him.

Justice Ramkumar Choubey held that the material placed before the Court did not justify denial of anticipatory bail and noted that the applicant was not present at the scene of the alleged assault. The Court also found that the trial court had rejected the bail plea without identifying any incriminating material or attributing any specific overt act to the applicant.

The case arose out of Crime No. 386/2026 registered at Kotwali Police Station, Narmadapuram, for offences under Sections 331(6), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Sections 458, 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).

According to the prosecution, a dispute between office-bearers of the District Bar Association during a meeting on April 17, 2026 escalated into a WhatsApp altercation involving the complainant, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, and the applicant's son, Rohan. It was alleged that Jain later telephoned the complainant, abused him and warned that his sons were coming to assault him. Subsequently, the complainant alleged that Jain's sons forcibly entered his office and physically assaulted him.

Senior Advocate Manish Datt, assisted by Advocate Nishank Pal Varma, appearing for Jain, argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated and that no active role had been attributed to him. It was submitted that Jain was neither present at the place of occurrence nor had he assaulted or abused the complainant. The defence further relied upon the Call Detail Records, contending that they completely disproved the prosecution's version because the records showed that it was the complainant who had called Jain twice during the relevant period, rather than Jain calling the complainant.

The State, represented by Panel Lawyer Sourabh Soni, opposed the application, contending that the FIR clearly named the applicant and alleged that the assault had taken place at his instance. Advocate Saurabh Kumar Tiwari, appearing for the objector, also opposed the plea, arguing that the investigating agency had failed to act against the co-accused due to the applicant's influence. It was further argued that the bar contained in the SC/ST Act rendered the anticipatory bail application not maintainable.

The High Court noted that it had earlier attempted to resolve the dispute amicably because it involved elected office-bearers of the District Bar Association. However, despite opportunities granted to both sides, the mediation process failed.

While examining the material on record, the Court observed that the prosecution's sole allegation against Jain was that he had telephoned the complainant and threatened him. However, the Court found that the Call Detail Records contradicted this allegation. The Court observed, "The Call Detail Records (CDR) contradict this assertion, revealing that it was the complainant who initiated the call to the applicant."

The Court further recorded that "No material or evidence has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the applicant called the complainant at the relevant time." It also emphasised that it was undisputed that Jain was not present at the place where the alleged physical assault occurred.

Justice Choubey additionally found fault with the trial court's order rejecting anticipatory bail, observing that it failed to identify any incriminating material or disclose any specific overt act attributable to the applicant.

Holding that no prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act was established against Jain, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed that, in the event of arrest, he be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount, subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 438(2) of the CrPC).

Case Title: Deepak Jain v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: June 22, 2026

Bench: Justice Ramkumar Choubey