Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the President of the Narmadapuram District Bar Association in connection with an assault case involving his son and the Association’s elected Treasurer, observing that no prima facie case was made out against him under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The order was passed by the Bench of Justice Ramkumar Choubey in the case Deepak Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC-19533-2026). The Court noted that while allegations had been levelled against the applicant, the available material did not establish a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act, making the bar on anticipatory bail inapplicable in this case.
According to the case records, both the applicant and the complainant are elected office-bearers of the Narmadapuram District Bar Association, with the applicant serving as President and the complainant as Treasurer. The dispute reportedly began during a meeting held on April 17, 2026, and later escalated through an exchange of messages on the Bar Association’s WhatsApp group between the complainant and the applicant’s son.
The prosecution alleged that the applicant verbally abused the complainant and warned him that his sons were coming to assault him. It further claimed that later the same day, the applicant’s sons forcibly entered the complainant’s office, abused him, and physically assaulted him while he was present with another advocate.
During the hearing, the applicant’s senior counsel argued that the applicant was not present at the scene of the alleged assault and had not directly abused the complainant. On the other hand, the State contended that the assault was carried out at the applicant’s instigation and that the provisions of the SC/ST Act were rightly invoked because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community.
After examining the material on record, the High Court observed that the Call Detail Records (CDR) did not support the complainant’s allegation that the applicant had made an abusive phone call. Instead, the records indicated that the complainant had initiated the call to the applicant. The Court also found no substantial evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offence in a manner that would attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The Bench attempted to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties, considering that both were elected members of the same Bar Association. However, the mediation efforts did not succeed.
In its order, the Court stated that since no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was established against the applicant, it was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, leaving the investigation and trial to proceed in accordance with law.
