MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Booked In Kidnapping FIR, Slams State For Failing To Produce CCTV Report Despite Grant Of Time

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of driving a car allegedly used in the kidnapping of a woman from the SC/ST Community.

The bench of Justice Ramkumar Choubey noted that despite the applicant's representation seeking examination of CCTV footage to support his claim that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the incident, the State failed to place the report on record.

The court noted that it had through order passed on 08.05.2026 directed the State to verify the documents submitted by appellant and also the CCTV footage; thereafter on 15.05.2026, State was given time to comply with the order dated 08.05.2026.

However, the court said, despite this the State was "unable to produce any verification report with respect to the CCTV footage".

The bench observed:

"Further, the only allegation against present appellant is that he was driving the car at the time when the prosecutrix was being taken by co-accused Sanju Patel. On the basis of the representation made by the appellant, police is unable to examine and verify the CCTV footage, which could be the best evidence to demonstrate that appellant was driving the car. Appellant is a Government servant and there is no apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the with the evidence

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that despite a clear representation made by appellant to the police on 31.03.2026 and, after seeking adjournment from this Court, respondent/State has utterly failed to submit the report in respect to CCTV footage examination, this Court is of the considered view that in these circumstances, appellant is entitled for pre-arrest of bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application for anticipatory bail is allowed".

An appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Act, challenging the order of April 21, 2026, passed by the Special Judge, wherein his bail application was rejected.

The dispute arose from a complaint lodged by a mother claiming that her daughter had been missing since April 4, 2026. She further claimed that he daughter was taken in a white-coloured car driven by the appellant and his brother Sanju Patel (co-accused). She further claimed that he daughter was taken to Padhajhir, then Bhopal and later to Indore, where they stayed for five days. The mother further claimed that Sanju Patel violated her daughter's privacy.

An FIR was subsequently lodged for kidnapping (Section 87), rape (Section 64(2)) of BNS and non-consensual sexual acts against a member of the SC/ST community under the SC/ST Act.

The counsel for the appellant contended that the co-accused Sanju, had procured the appellant's car allegedly to drop his mother at Kevlari. The appellant later discovered that Sanju had taken a girl from his car. He therefore made a representation before the SHO of Kesali and before the Superintendent of Police, Sagar stating that the footage of CCTV cameras installed at the relevant places from where the car was alleged to be passed can be examined, as the appellant was on examination and tabulation duty.

The counsel argued that the appellant was labelled as an accused merely because the co-accused used his car. The counsel further clarified that the appellant was a government servant and was ready to cooperate with the investigation.

With respect to invocation of SC/ST Act the court said that the appellant belongs to an ST community and hence provisions of the Act will not be applicable on him.

The court noted, "So far as the provisions of the Act of 1989 are concerned, it is apparent from the documents i.e. caste certificate, which is placed on record that the appellant also belongs to the scheduled tribe community "Goud". Therefore, provisions of the Act of 1989 does not attract in respect to the present appellant".

Further, the bench noted that the only allegations against the appellant were that he was driving the car when the prosecutrix was taken by the co-accused. However, the bench also noted that the police were unable to verify the appellant's claims regarding his involvement in the kidnapping from the CCTV footage. Noting that the appellant was a government servant and there was no apprehension of absconding, the bench deemed it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

Case Title: Mulam Singh Gond v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRA-3818-2026

For Appellant: Advocate Manan Agarwal

For State: Government Advocate Rakesh Kesharwani

For Objector: Advocate Shubham Mishra

Click here to read/download the Order