Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea Of "Journalists" Accused Of Using Casteist Slur Against Teacher
The High Court held that the allegations disclosed intentional insult and humiliation within public view, and therefore, the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act was applicable.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed appeals filed by two journalists who were booked under the SC/ST Act, 1989, seeking anticipatory bail, for assaulting a teacher and using casteist slurs against her.
The High Court was hearing appeals arising from an FIR registered under Sections 352, 384, 504, 506, 509 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
A Bench comprising Justice Gajendra Singh, while dismissing the plea, remarked: “the trial court has properly recorded the finding that this is a case where the bar under section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 applies and that finding is proper and the appellants do not succeed on the strength of Gorige Pentaiah (supra), Asmathunnisa (supra) and Ummed Singh (supra). Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.”
Advocate Mayank Mishra appeared for the appellants, while Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi -GA represented the respondents.
Background
The complainant, a female teacher belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, alleged that the appellants, claiming to be journalists, demanded money from her, assaulted her, and threatened to defame her publicly by circulating a video clip. It was further alleged that the appellants abused her using caste-related slurs in a place within public view.
Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered, and the appellants sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by a Special Judge. Aggrieved, they filed appeals before the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to precedents including Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011), Ummed Singh v. State of M.P. (2013), and Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (2025). The Bench reiterated that while Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act bars anticipatory bail where a prima facie case exists, the bar is not absolute and the Court must test whether the FIR discloses the essential ingredients of the offence.
The Bench, however, clarified that at the anticipatory bail stage, the Court cannot go into evidentiary details or conduct a mini-trial but must only assess whether the allegations, on their face, make out an offence under the Act.
On examining the FIR, the Court noted that the allegations included intentional insult and humiliation of the complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste, in a public place, and also took into account the publication of a news article referring to her in derogatory terms. These circumstances, it held, “are not such that the test of prima facie case is not satisfied.”
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act was clearly attracted and therefore, anticipatory bail could not be granted. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed.
Cause Title: Mukesh Kumawat v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-IND:28685)
Appearaces
Petitioners: Mayank Mishra
Respondents: Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi -GA