The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the President of the Narmadapuram District Bar Association in an assault case involving his sons and the elected Treasurer, who belonged to the Schedule Caste/Tribe Community, observing that no prima facie case under the SC/ST Atrocities Act was made out against the President. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 232]

Since the parties were elected members of the District Bar Association, the bench of Justice Ramkumar Choubey tried to amicably settle the matter, but mediation attempt proved unsuccessful.

Thereaftee, the bench directed, "Since no prima facie case is made out against the applicant under the SC/ST Act, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant stands allowed".

The applicant is elected President of the District Bar Association while the complainant serves as elected Treasurer. During a meeting on April 17, 2026, a dispute arose which led to a WhatsApp altercation between the complainant and the applicant's son in the group chat of the Bar Association.

Per the prosecution, the applicant called the complainant using abusive language and warned him that the applicant's sons were on their way to assault him. Subsequently, on April 17, 2026, while the complainant was in his office with an advocate, the applicant's sons forcibly entered, abused and assaulted the complainant, it is alleged.

The senior counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was neither present at the incident nor did he directly abuse the complainant.

The counsel for the State argued that the complainant received injuries at the hands of the accused persons at the instance of the applicant, as demonstrated in the FIR. The counsel argued that the applicant instigated his sons to assault the complainant. The State also argued that since the complainant belonged to the SC/ST community, the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were invoked, precluding the maintainability of anticipatory bail.

The court noted that the Call Detail Records (CDR) contradicted complainant's assertion that the applicant had made an abusive call to him. Rather, the CDR revealed that it was the complainant who initiated the call to the applicant.

Further, it noted that there was no incriminating material against the applicant and no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was made out. Therefore, the court allowed the application for Anticipatory bail.

Case Title: Deepak Jain v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-19533-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 232

For Applicant: Senior Advocate Manish Datt with Advocate Nikshak Pal Varma

For Objector: Advocate Saurabh Kumar Tiwari

For State: Advocate Sourabh Soni

Click here to read/download the Order