MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail After State Fails to Verify CCTV Footage in SC/ST Act Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur allowed anticipatory bail to a government servant accused under the SC/ST Act, after the State twice failed to produce a CCTV verification report despite clear court directions.

Justice Ram Kumar Choubey, sitting as Vacation Judge at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, on 18 May 2026 allowed the anticipatory bail appeal of Mulam Singh Gond, a government servant facing arrest in connection with an abduction and rape case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The decisive factor was not a finding on the merits of the accusation but the State's repeated failure to verify CCTV footage that the appellant himself had pointed to as exculpatory evidence. The Special Judge at Sagar had earlier rejected the anticipatory bail application, prompting the appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989.

The FIR and the Allegation Against the Appellant

FIR/Crime No. 52/2026 was registered at Police Station Kesali, District Sagar, for offences punishable under Sections 87 and 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. The case arose after the mother of the prosecutrix lodged a missing person report on 30 March 2023, registered as Crime No. 22/2026 at the same police station.

When the prosecutrix was traced and her statement was recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS on 4 April 2026, she stated that co-accused Sanju Patel had taken her in a white car driven by the present appellant, who is described as Sanju Patel's brother. Manju Patel was also said to be inside the car. According to her account, they took her to Padhazhir, from where Sanju Patel took her to Bhopal and then to Indore, where they stayed for five days and where Sanju Patel violated her privacy. On the basis of this statement, Crime No. 55/2026 was registered, and the appellant filed an anticipatory bail application before the Special Judge, District Sagar, under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. That application was rejected by order dated 21 April 2026, leading to the present criminal appeal.

The Appellant's Defence and the CCTV Representation

Counsel for the appellant, Shri Manan Agrawal, submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated solely because the car used by co-accused Sanju Patel belonged to him. The appellant's own account, placed before the court, was that Sanju Patel had borrowed the car on the pretext of dropping his mother at Kevlari. The appellant claimed he came to know only later that Sanju Patel had taken a girl in the car.

Critically, the appellant had made a representation on 31 March 2026 to the SHO, Kesali, and to the Superintendent of Police, District Sagar, pointing out that CCTV footage from locations along the alleged route of the car could be examined to verify whether he was actually driving. He also stated that on the relevant date he was on examination and tabulation duty pursuant to an official letter dated 28 March 2026. The appellant further argued that he himself belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community — the “Goud” community — and that the provisions of the Act of 1989 therefore do not attract against him. He expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and denied any likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Shri Rakesh Kesharwani, opposed bail on the ground that the appellant is named in the FIR and that the prosecutrix specifically stated he was driving the car when she was taken away.

The Court's Directions on CCTV Verification and the State's Non-Compliance

The High Court had already engaged with the CCTV question before the final hearing. By order dated 8 May 2026, the court directed the State to verify the documents submitted by the appellant and to examine the CCTV footage. When the matter came up again on 15 May 2026, the State was given further time to comply. Despite two opportunities, the State was unable to produce any verification report — neither on the CCTV footage nor on the documents annexed to the bail application, including the appellant's caste certificate.

The court, after perusing the case diary, found that the caste certificate on record showed the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community “Goud.” On that basis, the court held that the provisions of the Act of 1989 do not attract in respect of the present appellant. The court then turned to the sole remaining allegation: that the appellant was driving the car at the time the prosecutrix was taken by Sanju Patel.

On that allegation, the court observed that the CCTV footage, which the appellant himself had flagged as potentially decisive, could have been the best evidence to demonstrate whether he was actually driving the car. The police, despite the appellant's representation dated 31 March 2026 and despite two court directions, had failed to examine or verify that footage. The court also noted that the appellant is a government servant and that there is no apprehension of his absconding or tampering with evidence.

Why the State's Inaction Mattered

The court's reasoning rests on a straightforward but pointed observation: the appellant had proactively pointed investigators to CCTV footage that could either confirm or refute the allegation that he was driving the car. The State sought and received an adjournment from the High Court to carry out that verification. It then failed to produce any report. In those circumstances, the court held that the appellant is entitled to pre-arrest bail. The court expressly stated it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

The SC/ST Act angle collapsed at the threshold because the appellant's own caste certificate, which the State also failed to engage with during the verification exercise, showed he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. The Act of 1989 penalises atrocities committed by non-SC/ST persons against SC/ST persons; where the accused himself belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, the special provisions do not apply.

Order

Justice Ram Kumar Choubey allowed Criminal Appeal No. 3818 of 2026 and directed that in the event of arrest, Mulam Singh Gond shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Police/Arresting Officer. The bail is conditioned on his appearance before the Arresting Officer during investigation or before the trial court during trial, as the case may be. The appellant is also directed to abide by all conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.