Gwalior – In a decisive blow against caste-based violence, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior on November 6, dismissed the bail plea of Alok Sharma, a key accused in the shocking Bhind urination incident that exposed deep-seated atrocities against the Scheduled Caste community. The ruling, delivered by Justice Anil Verma, emphasizes the severity of the offenses under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and prioritizes societal harmony amid an ongoing investigation.
The case stems from a horrifying episode of caste discrimination and brutality that unfolded on October 20, in Bhind district, Madhya Pradesh, drawing widespread condemnation from human rights activists and Dalit organizations. The victim, a member of the Scheduled Caste community and the complainant in the case, had a prior phone dispute with the accused, including Alok Sharma, Sonu (also referred to as Sonu Barua), Chhotu, and others.
According to the FIR (Crime No. 63/2025) registered at Surpura Police Station on October 21, the ordeal began around 2-3 PM when Alok Sharma, accompanied by two co-accused, stormed the victim's residence. Armed with abusive language laced with casteist slurs, they allegedly dragged the victim out of his home and bundled him into a Bolero four-wheeler, abducting him against his will.
En route to a secluded area on Semarpura Road, the accused escalated the assault by beating the victim with an iron rod inside the moving vehicle. In a dehumanizing act of extreme humiliation, Sonu, Alok, and Chhotu took turns forcing the victim to drink their urine, reducing him to an object of caste-based vengeance. The group then transported him to Sonu Barua's agricultural field, where they continued the savage beating , hurled filthy caste-related abuses, and issued death threats to silence him.
The victim's rescue came at the hands of locals Kedar and Charan Singh, who intercepted the perpetrators and freed the victim. Traumatized but defiant, Singh lodged the FIR approximately six hours later, triggering swift arrests. Alok Sharma and his co-accused were taken into custody on October 21, and charged under Sections 140(3) (kidnapping to cause death or grievous hurt), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant), 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), 351(2) (criminal force), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The charges were further bolstered by Sections 3(1)(r) (insult in public view on caste grounds), 3(1)(s) (promoting enmity against SC/ST), and 3(2)(va) (assault or force against SC/ST persons) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.
Supporting the prosecution's narrative are statements from the victim and witness Pinki Jatav recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corroborate the abduction, physical assault, and forced urination. Medical reports indicate simple injuries, but the psychological trauma and casteist elements have amplified the case's notoriety as a stark reminder of untouchability's lingering scars in rural India.
Alok Sharma, in judicial custody since his arrest, first sought regular bail from the Special Judge (Atrocities Act) in Bhind, only to face rejection on October 29. He then escalated the matter via a first criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act before the Gwalior High Court.
During the hearing, Sharma's advocate, Anil Kumar Mishra, argued for his release, claiming false implication due to political pressure from a "specific community," interested witnesses, a delayed FIR, and the near-completion of the investigation. Mishra highlighted Sharma's local residency in Bhind and the absence of an FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report, asserting no grave offenses were substantiated.
Opposing fiercely, Public Prosecutor Mohit Shivhare for the state described the crime as "serious in nature," warning that bail could erode social harmony and embolden similar acts. Advocate Anil Kumar, representing the complainant, echoed the plea for rejection, stressing the need for a thorough probe.
After scrutinizing the case diary, FIR, and witness testimonies, Justice Verma ruled against bail. "From perusal of the case diary, it appears that the investigation is still pending and appellant is named in the FIR. FIR is also corroborated by the statements of complainant and Pinki Jatav under Section 183 of BNSS, therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to allow the application," the order stated. The appeal was dismissed, ensuring Sharma remains in custody as the investigation progresses.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.