The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the stringent stance on anticipatory bail in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where serious allegations of sexual assault are involved. The denial of bail underscores the statutory prohibition against anticipatory bail and the necessity of full investigation before any pre-arrest relief can be considered.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Yuvraj Lodhi, seeks anticipatory bail in relation to FIR Crime No. 328/2026 registered at Police Station Stationganj, District Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh. The FIR alleges offences under Sections 64, 64(2), and 332(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(w-ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegations pertain to the sexual assault of a woman from a Scheduled Tribe community, reportedly committed on 08.01.2026.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix and the appellant allegedly had a consensual relationship from 2023 to early 2026
- The incident alleged in the FIR occurred on 08.01.2026
- On 10.02.2026, the prosecutrix executed an "Aapsi Sahmati Patra" (Exhibit at page 20), purportedly acknowledging a financial settlement and stating no dues remained
- On the same date, 10.02.2026, she executed an affidavit (Exhibit at pages 24 onwards) ratifying the compromise
- The FIR was not registered initially; it was registered only after intervention via the CM Helpline
- The appellant claims the allegations are fabricated to extort money following the breakdown of a financial arrangement
- The prosecution contends the relationship was a ruse and the sexual assault was real and non-consensual
Procedural History
- 08.01.2026: Alleged incident of sexual assault
- 10.02.2026: Execution of "Aapsi Sahmati Patra" and affidavit by prosecutrix
- 2026 (date unspecified): Initial refusal by police to register FIR
- 2026 (date unspecified): FIR registered following CM Helpline directive
- 21.04.2026: Special Judge, Narsinghpur, rejected anticipatory bail application (Bail Application No. 238/2026)
- 06.05.2026: First Criminal Appeal No. 3847 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
Relief Sought
The appellant seeks anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with conditions to be imposed by the Court. He asserts that the trial will take considerable time and that he is willing to cooperate fully with the investigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the existence of a purported compromise document and financial settlement justifies the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving serious allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, despite the statutory bar under Section 18.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the allegations are false and motivated by financial dispute. He relied on the "Aapsi Sahmati Patra" and affidavit dated 10.02.2026 as conclusive evidence of compromise and withdrawal of allegations. He contended that the FIR was registered only due to procedural pressure via the CM Helpline and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary. He cited the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted where the allegations are prima facie false or motivated.
For the Respondent/State
The State and complainant’s counsel opposed the bail plea, asserting that the allegations are grave, specific, and fall squarely within the purview of Section 3(1)(w-ii) of the SC/ST Act, which criminalizes sexual assault on a member of a Scheduled Tribe. They argued that the documents submitted are suspect and cannot be accepted at the pre-arrest stage. They emphasized that the investigation is in its infancy and that the appellant’s arrest is essential for proper probe, including recovery of evidence and corroboration of the prosecutrix’s statement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the statutory framework of the SC/ST Act, and the stage of investigation. It noted that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act explicitly bars the grant of anticipatory bail for offences under the Act. The Court observed that while Section 18 does not absolutely preclude bail, it imposes a high threshold requiring exceptional circumstances.
"The mere existence of a purported compromise or financial settlement does not, prima facie, negate the allegations of sexual assault, which are of a serious and non-compoundable nature."
The Court held that the documents relied upon by the appellant - the "Aapsi Sahmati Patra" and affidavit - are not conclusive proof of innocence or withdrawal of complaint at this stage. Their authenticity, voluntariness, and legal effect require evidentiary scrutiny during trial. The Court further emphasized that sexual assault under the SC/ST Act is a non-bailable, non-compoundable offence, and the gravity of the allegations cannot be mitigated by post-facto documents.
The Court also noted that the investigation is at an initial stage and that custodial interrogation may be necessary to determine whether the relationship was genuine or a cover for exploitation. The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the case but held that the balance of convenience and public interest in protecting vulnerable communities weighed heavily against granting anticipatory bail.
The Verdict
The first criminal appeal was dismissed. The appellant’s prayer for anticipatory bail was denied. The Court held that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, combined with the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, rendered the case unfit for anticipatory bail. No conditions were imposed, and no interim relief was granted. The appellant remains liable to arrest upon completion of investigation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Bar Under Section 18 Is Not Easily Circumvented
- Practitioners must recognize that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a strong presumption against anticipatory bail in sexual assault cases
- Post-facto compromise documents cannot override the statutory framework at the pre-arrest stage
- Courts will not entertain bail pleas based on unverified affidavits or settlement papers without thorough evidentiary testing
Investigation Stage Determines Bail Eligibility
- Anticipatory bail is unlikely if the investigation is in its early phase and custodial interrogation is deemed necessary
- Courts will defer to investigative agencies’ assessment of the need for custody, especially in cases involving vulnerable victims
- Delay in filing bail applications after FIR registration may be viewed as an attempt to evade investigation
Non-Compoundable Nature of SC/ST Offences Prevails
- Sexual assault under Section 3(1)(w-ii) is non-compoundable, regardless of victim’s subsequent statements
- Consent or financial settlement cannot be used to negate criminal liability under the Act
- Legal strategy must focus on challenging the credibility of allegations during trial, not pre-arrest
