MP High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Videographing Women In Maternity Ward, Says State Could Not Show Incriminating Material
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man accused of videographing the women admitted in the Maternity/Labour Ward, observing that the State was not able to show any material from the case diary. The bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed:"However, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State has not been able to show any material from the case diary against the...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man accused of videographing the women admitted in the Maternity/Labour Ward, observing that the State was not able to show any material from the case diary.
The bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed:
"However, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State has not been able to show any material from the case diary against the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of allegation levelled against the appellant, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 is hereby set aside".
The man had filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the rejection of his bail application by the Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Amendment) Act).
The counsel for the accused argued that he was arrested on May 5, 2026, for criminal intimidation (Sections 77 and 79), assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty (Section 132), and harbouring an offender (Section 221), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 332) and assault or criminal force (Section 351) of the IPC. He was also charged with outraging the modesty of a SC/ST woman (Section 3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Amendment) Act.
The counsel for the accused submitted that he took the videos of the doctors and staff with a view to showing irregularities in the hospital. It was further argued that he has been in custody since May 5, 2026.
The counsel for the State argued that the accused had a criminal history of 4 cases.
However, it was noted that the State was unable to show any material against the accused from the case diary.
Therefore, considering the submissions, the court deemed it proper to grant bail to the accused and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Krashnanu Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRA-4480-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 207
For Appellant: Advocate Madhur Bhargava
For State: Public Prosecutor Brajesh Kumar Tyagi