The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to two individuals who claimed to be journalists, after they were accused of assaulting a woman teacher and labeling her “chindi chor” (translated as “petty thief”) in a news report. In the course of the proceedings, the court, presided over by Justice Gajendra Singh, concluded that there was prima facie evidence of intent to humiliate or insult the teacher, particularly as she belonged to a Scheduled Caste (SC). The court remarked that such intent could reasonably be inferred from the circumstances.
The controversy originated from a news article published in Dainik Sach Media dated March 26, 2025, in which the teacher was referred to as “chindi chor,” and the appellants, identified as Mahesh Kumawat and Mohit Jat, were said to have been involved in questioning the teacher during an examination over a student's classification and attendance. The accused asserted that they had approached the school to report on alleged illegal recovery of money from students when their access to film the examination was denied, and contended that the case against them was falsely lodged.
The police record, however, indicated more serious allegations: the two individuals had allegedly assaulted the teacher after she left the school and subjected her to casteist slurs and demands. The State opposed their anticipatory bail application, invoking the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arguing that the facts disclosed in the complaint sufficed to make out a prima facie case under that statute. The court found that the appellants did not belong to SC or ST categories, and that the teacher had asserted her belonging to a Scheduled Caste, bringing into operation the protections and penalties under the SC/ST Act.
After considering the submissions, the High Court held that the case presented adequate grounds to deny anticipatory bail to the applicants. The court remarked that the allegations in the First Information Report could not be dismissed at this stage by discrediting them, because they satisfied the threshold for a prima facie case. The appeals for anticipatory bail were accordingly rejected.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.