Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyanarayan @ Narayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2016
CRA-1747-2016
(SATYANARAYAN @ NARAYAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
19-12-2016
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the complainant. Case diary is available.
This criminal appeal under Section 14(A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is directed against the order passed by the Special Judge, Dewas in bail application no.38000382/16 dated 03.11.2016 whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the present appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The accused/appellant was arrested by the Police Station, Khategoan, district Dewas in Crime No.876/2016 under Sections 376-D,506,342,34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the prosecution story on the date of incident on 29.09.2016 the prosecutrix alongwith her son was going to Nemawar for taking holy dip in Narmada river. She started for Nemawar at 4.30 P.M. from Indore and reached Khategaon at about 8 P.M. She was walking towards Nemawar and stopped at petrol pump where the co-accused Devendra Patil, the Manager of the petrol pump, took her to the roof and committed rape on her. It is further alleged that the present appellant and the other co-accused had helped Devendra Patil. The prosecutrix was detained at the petrol pump for the whole night and at 5âOâClock she was released and her son was also detained by the accused persons. Arguments heard, case diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant opposes the bail application.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no injury on the body of the prosecutrix. The story narrated by the prosecutrix is also unnatural and she was 35 years of age when the alleged offence was committed on her. He further submits that she was known to Devendra Patil and by her consent she went over to meet Devendra Patil, the co-accused against whom the allegation of rape is alleged. So far as the applicant is concerned, there is no allegation of rape. He only allegedly snatched the mobile of the prosecutrix in the morning to prevent her from reporting the matter to the police.
After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial. He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE