The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused in a serious SC/ST Act case after six consecutive bail applications, emphasizing that prolonged judicial custody without trial conclusion cannot be sustained when material evidence contradicting the prosecution’s case emerges. The judgment underscores the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where trial delays are systemic and new evidence undermines the basis of prior rejections.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Dashrath Barman, was arrested on 02.08.2020 in connection with FIR Crime No. 355 of 2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Umaria, Madhya Pradesh. The FIR alleges a series of grave offences including rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, outrage of modesty under Section 509 IPC, criminal mischief under Section 436 IPC, preparation for offence under Section 511 IPC, offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1980, Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
Key Facts
- The appellant has been in judicial custody since 02.08.2020, exceeding five years as of the date of this judgment.
- This is the sixth bail application filed on his behalf.
- Two earlier bail applications were rejected on merits: one on 12.07.2021 and another on 08.07.2022.
- The statement of Dr. Richa Gupta (PW/4), recorded on 04.08.2021, was not considered during the hearing of the bail application dated 08.07.2022.
- In paragraph 3 of her deposition, Dr. Gupta stated that, according to the prosecutrix’s own history, she had been in a friendship and physical relationship with the appellant for the past one year.
- The prosecution has not declared Dr. Gupta hostile, and her testimony remains admissible and binding.
- As of the date of this order, statements of nine prosecution witnesses have been recorded, and the trial remains ongoing with no foreseeable conclusion.
Procedural History
- 02.08.2020: Arrest of the appellant
- 12.07.2021: First rejection of bail application by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Umaria
- 04.08.2021: Deposition of Dr. Richa Gupta (PW/4) recorded
- 08.07.2022: Second rejection of bail application, without considering Dr. Gupta’s statement
- 17.02.2026: Special Judge rejected sixth bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023
- 05.05.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 2761 of 2026 heard before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
Relief Sought
The appellant sought release on bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration, non-consideration of material evidence, and the prolonged pendency of trial. He undertook to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether prolonged judicial custody exceeding five years, coupled with the emergence of unconsidered witness testimony that materially contradicts the prosecution’s version, justifies the grant of bail despite the gravity of the offences under the SC/ST Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the appellant has been in custody since 02.08.2020, making this one of the longest pre-trial detentions in recent memory. He emphasized that the statement of Dr. Richa Gupta, recorded on 04.08.2021, was not taken into account during the earlier bail hearing on 08.07.2022. The witness’s testimony - that the prosecutrix had been in a consensual physical relationship with the appellant for a year - directly undermines the allegation of rape and sexual assault. Since the witness was not declared hostile, her statement is admissible and must be treated as part of the prosecution’s case. The counsel further submitted that nine prosecution witnesses have already been examined, and the trial is likely to extend for years, rendering continued detention unjust under Article 21 of the Constitution. The appellant offered to comply with all bail conditions.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed bail, arguing that the offences alleged are heinous and fall under the SC/ST Act, which mandates strict scrutiny in granting bail. It contended that the nature of the charges, including attempt to murder and use of explosives, warrants continued custody. The State did not dispute the existence of Dr. Gupta’s statement but argued that its relevance was insufficient to override the seriousness of the allegations.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while the offences alleged are grave, the duration of custody - over five years without trial conclusion - raises serious concerns under Article 21. The Court noted that the right to a speedy trial is an integral component of personal liberty. The Court further held that the statement of Dr. Richa Gupta, though recorded by the prosecution, was not considered in the earlier bail order dated 08.07.2022. The Court emphasized that where a prosecution witness provides testimony inconsistent with the prosecution’s narrative and is not declared hostile, such testimony must be evaluated as part of the evidentiary matrix.
"The fact that the prosecutrix herself, through her medical attendant, disclosed a prior consensual relationship with the accused, cannot be ignored merely because it is inconvenient to the prosecution’s case."
The Court held that the non-consideration of this material evidence in the prior bail order rendered the rejection of the sixth application legally unsustainable. The Court also noted that the trial has progressed to the stage where nine witnesses have been examined, indicating that the prosecution’s case is largely complete. The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the case but held that the balance of convenience, the right to liberty, and the principle of proportionality strongly favour bail.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The appellant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 70,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount, to be approved by the trial court. The order is subject to seven conditions, including cooperation with investigation, no contact with witnesses, no commission of similar offences, no seeking of unnecessary adjournments, and no departure from India without permission. The order shall stand revoked automatically if any condition is violated.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prolonged Custody Overrides Gravity of Offence in Bail Decisions
- Practitioners must now argue that pre-trial detention exceeding three to four years, especially in cases with no procedural urgency, constitutes a violation of Article 21.
- Courts cannot rely solely on the nature of the offence to deny bail when custody is prolonged and trial is unduly delayed.
Unconsidered Prosecution Witness Testimony Can Be Grounds for Bail
- If a prosecution witness gives testimony inconsistent with the charge sheet and is not declared hostile, it must be treated as part of the evidentiary record.
- Failure to consider such testimony in a prior bail order renders the rejection legally flawed and subject to reversal.
Trial Progress as a Factor in Bail
- When a significant portion of prosecution evidence has been recorded, the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation diminishes, strengthening the case for bail.
- Courts should assess the stage of trial - not just the charge sheet - when evaluating bail applications under the SC/ST Act.
