Despite Previous Criminal History, Court Cites Lack of Evidence for Bail Decision
In a significant legal development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Krashnanu Sharma, also known as Krashnanu@ Vikky, who was implicated in a case involving videography-related offenses. The decision, rendered by Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, came during the hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 4480 of 2026, challenging a previous order from the Special Judge (Atrocities) in Guna, Madhya Pradesh.
Sharma was arrested on May 5, 2026, in connection with offenses under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Amendment) Act, 2015, the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsak Evam Chikitsa Se Sambandhit Vyaktiyon Ki Suraksha Adhiniyam, and the Information Technology Act. The accusations involved unauthorized videography within a hospital's maternity/labour ward, where Sharma claimed he was documenting staff irregularities rather than infringing on patient privacy.
The appellant's counsel, Shri Madhur Bhargava, argued that Sharma had been falsely implicated and that there was no substantive evidence connecting him to the alleged offenses. Despite the appellant's criminal history involving four prior cases, the court found the arguments compelling, especially since the State's counsel, Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi, could not present any material evidence from the case diary against Sharma.
Justice Bansal, while granting bail, emphasized the absence of substantial evidence against the appellant and the nature of the allegations. The court directed that Sharma be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and a solvent surety of the same amount. The bail comes with stringent conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, not leaving the country without court permission, and not intimidating witnesses.
The decision underscores the judiciary's balanced approach in assessing bail applications, weighing the severity of allegations against the evidence available. It also highlights the court's commitment to upholding individual rights while ensuring compliance with legal procedures.
The order has been forwarded to the trial court for necessary compliance, and the criminal appeal has been disposed of accordingly.
Bottom line:-
Bail granted under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Amendment) Act, 2015, considering the nature of allegations and absence of substantial evidence against the appellant, despite criminal history.
Statutory provision(s):
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Amendment) Act, 2015 Section 14-A(2), Sections 79, 77, 221, 132, 332 (a), 352, 351 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3/4 of MP Chikitsak Evam Chikitsa Se Sambandhit Vyaktiyon Ki Suraksha Adhiniyam, Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act.
