MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To 'Journalists' Accused Of Assaulting, Using Casteist Remarks Against Teacher
Image by: Shubha Patidar
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a trial court order denying anticipatory bail to two men stated to be journalists booked for assaulting and using casteist remarks against a scheduled caste school teacher.
The court also said that the news article which was published in relation to the teacher described her as a 'Chindi Chor' meaning petty thief and thus the intention to insult the complainant could be inferred from the FIR.
Justice Gajendra Singh in his order said that the contents of the FIR disclose a "prima facie case" against the appellants.
"The intention can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and appellants claim that they are journalists (though police station Sardarpur, Dhar has reported that they are not recognized in M.P) and they publish news in Dainik Sach Media newspaper published from Jodhpur dated 26.03.2025. The news article was published with the reference of appellant Mahesh Kumawat in which respondent No.2 (teacher) was described as "Chindi Chor." The word "Chindi Chor" if translated means "petty thief" or "myserly thief." Accordingly, the intention of humiliation or insult of respondent No.2 is inferred and the contents of the First Information Report are not such that the test of prima facie case is not satisfied".
The court further said that the appellants do not belong to SC or ST category whereas the teacher had filed the complaint disclosing her caste that falls within the Scheduled Caste category and the "caste of appellants that certainly does not fall within the purview of SC or ST category".
"Accordingly, the trial court has properly recorded the finding that this is a case where the bar under section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 applies and that finding is proper and the appellants do not succeed...," the court added.
Section 18 of SC ST Prevention of Atrocities Act states that nothing in section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.
The court was hearing two criminal appeals challenging an April trial court order which rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of two men in an FIR under BNS Sections 126(2)(wrongful restraint), 115(2)(Voluntarily causing hurt), 119(Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act), 351(3)(Criminal intimidation by threatening to cause death or grievous hurt), 3(5)(common intention).
They were also booked under various sections of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act including Sections 3(r) (whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view) and 3(s) (whoever abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view).
The FIR was lodged against the appellants who do not belong to the SC or ST category on the complaint of respondent No.2, a woman belonging to SC category and working as school teacher.
The woman alleged that on March 6, when she was performing her work of conducting examinations at the school, the appellants reached there, "introduced themselves as journalists" and asked why she has classified one student as private.
She replied that minimum attendance of 75% were not completed so as per the policy the list has been updated on the portal. The appellants started to film the video of the school and the teacher, when the other teachers of the school including the complainant said that since examination work was being conducted video cannot be filmed after which the appellants left.
Thereafter at 1.00 p.m when complainant was walking home the appellants appeared suddenly on a bike and restrained her way and demanded Rs.1 lakh threatening that if the demand is not fulfilled, they will circulate the video in which they have procured admission of taking the money from students.
The complainant claimed that she was slapped and thrashed by appellant Mohit Jat. Thereafter, she claimed, appellant Mahesh Kumawat assaulted her in the abdomen. She claimed that they also "uttered casteist remarks and insulted and humiliated her".
The appellants argued that that they had received information regarding illegal recovery of money from the students, wherein they visited the school and covered the whole story. Due to this, the complainant had threatened the appellants that she will file false and frivolous complaint against them. The appellants raised the issue through the media platform after which they alleged that the complainant with malice, ulterior motive and hidden intentions filed file a false and frivolous complaint against the appellants.
The State opposed the appeals arguing that the Special Judge had considered all the aspects and correctly found that the bar under section 18 of the SC & ST (POA), 1989 is attracted. Apart from that, an enquiry on the application of appellants, revealed that the teacher had committed no offence and the compliant of appellant Mohit Jat is prima facie with a view to defend themselves in future.
The appeals were dismissed.
Case title: MUKESH KUMAWAT v/s THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS AND Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4015 of 2025