Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21861
1 CRA-7228-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 12 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7228 of 2025
RAKESH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Rathi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Jayesh Yadav - G.A. for the State.
Shri Ritu Raj Bhatnagar - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 438 of the
BNSS, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 16.07.2025 in bail
application No.844/2024 by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 Dewas
(M.P.) whereby application for anticipatory bail in crime no.452/2025 registered at
Police-Station- Khategaon, District- Dewas (MP) for the offence punishable under
sections 318(4), 316(2), 336 (3), 61(2), 296, 351 (3), 3(5), of the BNS, 2023 and
sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 has
been rejected.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that complainant- Ankush belongs to
scheduled caste community specified in Dewas Districtr of M.P. whereas appellant
does not belongs to SC/ST category. Complainant is suffering from 40% vision
loss and crime no.452/2025 was registered on 04.06.2025 at police station
Khategaon, District- Dewas on the written complaint preferred at police station
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 14-08-2025
19:01:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21861
2 CRA-7228-2025
Khategaon in which it is stated that his father Rajesh Masaniya have worked for a
period of 8 years with the appellant/accused and appellant/accused is thus aware
with the complainant and his family. About two and a half years prior to the
complaint appellant/accused Rakesh S/o Jagdeesh Yadav asked the complainant
and his father at the field that complainant is suffering from partial vision
impairment and he will get prepared the disability certificate of complainant so
that complainant could get scholarship. Complainant and his father believed this
assurance and appellant asked the complainant that adhar card of complainant
requires updation and appellant Rakesh Yadav told on 13.12.2022 that his friends
Kamlesh S/o Chandrapura Operates Adhar Services Center in Harda which is
district headquarter of M.P. He will take you to the Adhar Services Center.
Appellant Rakesh Yadav took the complainant to Adhar Services Center Harda
where some information regarding complainant was collected and the adhar of the
complainant was updated. After sometimes, the complainant got adhar card then
he found that instead of his name/ father’s name and date of birth the details of
appellant are entered only the photo of complainant is being displayed. He
inquired from the appellant then appellant expressed ignorance and told the
complainant that they will get correction but delayed the correction for a period of
one year and got corrected adhar card on 15.12.2020. Thereafter, complainant
again utilized adhar card for the benefit of Govt. Schemes then he came to know
that his date of birth is not being matched and he was denied the benefits of Govt.
Scheme. He again told the appellant/accused for correction of date of birth then
appellant/accused did not cooperated and one month prior to making the
complaint, complainant asked through call to the appellant/accused and expressed
his grievance for not seeking the benefit of Govt. Schemes and prayed for
correction of date of birth but appellant/accused uttered obscene words on phone
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 14-08-2025
19:01:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21861
3 CRA-7228-2025
and also told that what harm will you make belonging to Balai community. He will
not make correction in adhar card and whatever you have to take action do that
and extended the threat of life and thereafter, a complaint was made raising
suspicion that appellant have got corrected the adhar in his name and as taken the
benefit of Govt. Scheme.
3. Application of appellant was rejected by the trial court recording the
reason that investigation is incomplete and allegations are regarding cheating with
a person of marginalized community. Investigation is to be made regarding the
benefit of Govt. Schemes enjoyed by the appellant/accused. Case is not of no
evidence and bar of section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 applies.
4. This appeal is being preferred on the ground that appellant is a journalist
and he is not involved in any kind of cheating. There is no specific allegation
against the present appellant which attract provisions under SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989. Nothing incriminating material has been seized from the possession of the
present appellant. He is permanent resident of District Dewas.
5. Counsel for the complainant opposes the criminal appeal raising the
contention that Adhar Update History xxxxxxxx1124 discloses that demographic
and biometrics updation were taken place for six times during the relevant period
and complainant has been deprived from the benefits of Govt. Schemes and
appellant/accused committed cheating and bar as per section 18 of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989 applies and the trial court has rightly rejected the application.
6. Counsel for the State opposes the criminal appeal referring to the report
dated 27.07.2025 and 07.08.2025 submitted by the Police Station- Khategaon
District-Dewas and submitted that appellant/accused have got corrected three
times the details in adhar card belonging to the complainant and complainant is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 14-08-2025
19:01:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21861
4 CRA-7228-2025
facing problems and which form of benefit is taken by the appellant/ accused is
under investigation.
7. In the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala (2024) SCC Online SC
2249 the Apex Court has held that bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 would
apply only to those cases where prima facie material exist pending under the Act
of 1989.
8. The Apex Court has further stated that the minimum threshold for
determining whether an offence under the Act has been committed or not is to
ascertain whether all the ingredients which are necessary to constitute the offence
are prima facie disclosed in the complaint or not. An accusation which does not
disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence on a prima facie reading cannot
be said to be sufficient to bring into operation the bar envisaged by Section 18 of
the Act, 1989. Holding otherwise would mean that even a plain accusation, devoid
of the essential ingredients required for constituting the offence, would be enough
for invoking the bar under Section 18.
9. Now the question arises whether the averments in the FIR / complaint for
incident discloses commission of offence under sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
and 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Tala Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Others 2025 INSC 390 has held that in para-5 and 6 as below:-
“5. From a prima facie examination of the FIR, it
is very clear that there is only one alleged instance
of an insult/caste slur but there is no allegation that
such offending statement was made in the presence
of members of the general public. Hence, an
essential ingredient for attracting Sections 2(1)(r)
and 2(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, i.e., that such
statement must be made within “public view”, as
held by this Court in Shajan Skaria v. State ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 14-08-2025
19:01:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:218615 CRA-7228-2025
Kerala4, is prima facie not made out from the FIR.
Further, an examination of the FIR also shows that
the allegations regarding the appellant’s
involvement in the alleged conspiracy for
respondent no. 3’s abduction and criminal
intimidation are only inferential in nature, which
can be established during trial.
6. The relationship between the parties, as evident
from the FIR itself is that the appellant and the
complainant were associated for a long time (since
2012) with the temple’s activities, for which a
Trust was formed that named both of them as
trustees. It was only in 2017 that certain disputes
arose between them and multiple civil suits
regarding the temple’s properties and funds
were instituted by the appellant.”
11. In this case no evidence has been collected till now that
appellant/accused has benefited from the entries made in the demographic
updation of adhar card of complainant as per allegations in the complaint. As per
allegations in the complaint parties are associated for a long time and father of the
complainant was working with appellant/accused.
12. In the light of this over all perspective and considering the allegations in
the FIR, our prima facie conclusion is that the appellant Rakesh Yadav, is entitled
to anticipatory bail as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case
o f Deepak Kumar Tala Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2025) INSC
390, Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union Of India – (2020) 4 SCC 727 and Shajan
Skaria vs The State Of Kerala – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249. In this view of the
matter the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the
appellant he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer. He shall also abide by the conditions
enumerated under sub section (2) of section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 14-08-2025
19:01:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21861
6 CRA-7228-2025
13. It is made clear that if after completion of investigation it is found that
appellant is involved in utilizing the adhar card of the complainant for taking the
benefits of Govt. Schemes then State may apply for cancellation of bail of the
appellant.
14. With the aforesaid, criminal appeal is allowed and stands disposed off.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 14-08-2025
19:01:04