Did the Madhya Pradesh HC Deny Bail to Journalists in SC/ST Case?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied bail to individuals claiming to be journalists, accused of heinous crimes against a Dalit teacher. This case underscores the judiciary's stance on caste-based offences and sets a precedent for similar future cases.
Key Takeaways
- Madhya Pradesh High Court denies bail to alleged journalists.
- Accusations include blackmail and assault against a Dalit teacher.
- Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prohibits anticipatory bail.
- The ruling emphasizes the judiciary’s role in protecting marginalized communities.
- Case highlights the seriousness of caste-based offences.
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), Oct 2 (NationPress) The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail requests from individuals purporting to be journalists who faced allegations of blackmail and physical assault against a Dalit woman teacher in Sardarpur, Dhar.
A single-judge bench led by Justice Gajendra Singh denied the requests made by Mukesh Kumawat and Mohit Jat, who are implicated in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The judge noted that the statutory prohibition on granting anticipatory bail as outlined in Section 18 of the Act was applicable, given that the allegations in the FIR revealed a prima facie case of caste-related insult and degradation.
It is alleged that the accused not only blackmailed and physically assaulted the Dalit teacher but also demanded ₹1 lakh and threatened to disseminate videos that would defame her. During the incident, they reportedly used casteist slurs.
While denying their bail request, the MP High Court stated: "The details in the First Information Report present a prima facie case. The term 'Chindi Chor', when translated, means 'petty thief' or 'miserly thief'. Hence, the intention to humiliate or insult the victim is evident."
Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain case, Justice Singh underscored that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when prima facie allegations under the SC/ST Act are established.
"The provisions of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 explicitly exclude the applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C., creating an absolute bar against granting anticipatory bail for individuals facing specific charges under the SC/ST Act. The opportunity for anticipatory bail for such a defendant is nullified," the ruling stated.
In rejecting the bail applications, the Madhya Pradesh High Court remarked: "Thus, the trial court has accurately noted that this is a situation where the restriction under Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 is applicable, and that finding is justifiable."
Point of View
It is imperative to highlight that justice must prevail in cases of caste-related atrocities. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision reflects a strong commitment to upholding the rights of marginalized communities, serving as a reminder of our collective responsibility to ensure societal equity and justice.
NationPress
02/10/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the charges against the accused?
The accused faced allegations of blackmail and physical assault against a Dalit woman teacher, including demands for money and threats to disseminate defamatory videos.
What does Section 18 of the SC/ST Act state?
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prohibits the granting of anticipatory bail to individuals accused of offences under this Act, establishing a clear barrier against such requests.
What is the significance of this ruling?
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting marginalized communities from caste-based violence and sets a precedent for future cases under the SC/ST Act.
