In a significant order reinforcing procedural safeguards, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed investigating officers and trial courts to strictly comply with Supreme Court guidelines on arrest and bail in cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The judgment underscores that arrest cannot be a mechanical exercise, even in offences under special statutes, and mandates adherence to the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Asif Akhtar, was accused in Crime No. 518 of 2025 registered at Police Station Banda, District Sagar (M.P.), for offences under:
- Sections 316(2), 296, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
- Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(V-A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act)
The appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking relief, which was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sagar, on 12.01.2026 in B.A. No. 35 of 2026. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the present Criminal Appeal No. 3844 of 2026 before the High Court.
Procedural History
- Crime Registration: Crime No. 518 of 2025 registered at Police Station Banda, District Sagar (M.P.)
- 12.01.2026: Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sagar, rejected the appellant’s application under Section 482 BNSS in B.A. No. 35 of 2026
- 13.05.2026: Present appeal filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
Relief Sought
The appellant sought directions to the Investigation Officer/Trial Court to comply with the bail guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, as well as the Notification No. A/5666/III-2-9/40 Pt-I F.No.15 dated 20.09.2023 issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether investigating officers and trial courts are bound to follow the Supreme Court’s bail guidelines in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act and BNS, even when the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the offences alleged were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and thus, the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil must be followed.
- Reliance was placed on the Notification dated 20.09.2023 issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which mandates compliance with these guidelines.
- It was contended that arrest should not be a mechanical exercise and must be justified by the facts and circumstances of the case.
For the Respondent/State
- The State’s counsel raised objections to the appellant’s request, though the specifics of these objections were not detailed in the judgment.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court observed that the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil are binding on all lower courts and investigating agencies. These judgments emphasize that:
- Arrest is not mandatory in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
- Judicial scrutiny must precede arrest to ensure that it is not arbitrary or unjustified.
- Compliance with procedural safeguards is essential to prevent misuse of arrest powers.
The Court noted that the Notification dated 20.09.2023 issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh explicitly directs compliance with these guidelines. Additionally, the Court referred to Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the judgment in Amanpreet Singh v. CBI, which reinforce the principle that arrest should be the exception rather than the rule in cases involving lesser offences.
"The Court emphasized that the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil are not merely advisory but have the force of law. Investigating officers and trial courts must ensure that arrest is resorted to only when absolutely necessary, and after due application of mind to the facts of the case."
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the appeal and disposed of the matter with the following directions:
- The Investigation Officer/Trial Court must ensure strict compliance with the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
- The Notification dated 20.09.2023 issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh must be followed in letter and spirit.
- The principles enunciated in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Amanpreet Singh v. CBI must guide the exercise of arrest powers.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Guidelines Are Binding, Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must argue that arrest is not automatic in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, even under special statutes like the SC/ST Act.
- Courts and investigating agencies are bound by the Supreme Court’s guidelines, and non-compliance can lead to judicial intervention.
Procedural Safeguards Must Be Followed
- Judicial scrutiny before arrest is mandatory. Investigating officers must record reasons for arrest, and trial courts must verify these reasons.
- Notification No. A/5666/III-2-9/40 Pt-I F.No.15 dated 20.09.2023 issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court is a critical reference for ensuring compliance with bail guidelines.
Implications for Special Statutes
- The judgment clarifies that special statutes like the SC/ST Act do not override procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court. Even in cases involving atrocities, arrest must be justified by the facts and not merely by the nature of the offence.
- Practitioners should cite this judgment to challenge arbitrary arrests in cases under the SC/ST Act or BNS where the punishment is less than seven years.
