Ramteke Ram Sadanand Ramteke vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2023

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramteke Ram Sadanand Ramteke vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2023

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                      ON THE 5 th OF APRIL, 2023
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1241 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
R AM TEKE R A M (SADANAND RAMTEKE) S/O SHRI
S HYAM R AO RAMTEKE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETD. MANAGER, UNION BANK OF
INDIA, R/O SAMRUDHI SANKUL, MADHA COMPLEX,
CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

                                                            .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. )

AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
      STAITON MAJHOULI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    RAM PRATAP SINGH GOND S/O SHRI JAGJAHIR
      SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O
      VILLAGE    CHHAWARI,     POLICE   STATION
      MAJHOULI, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NARENDRA CHOURASIYA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI RAJESH TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2 )

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                 ORDER

The appellant has filed this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 09.12.2022 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sidhi in 2 connection with SCATR No.30/2022 registered at Police Station-Majhouli , District- Sidhi for the offences punishable u/s 379, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC and section 3(1-10) of SC/ST (POA) Act whereby application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant himself is a member of scheduled caste and therefore, offence under Atrocities Act is not attributable over him. It is further submitted that at the relevant point of time, he was working as Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Majhouli, District Sidhi. Complainant/respondent No.2 herein took some loan and defalcated. Therefore, his tractor was taken by the Bank because it was hypotheticated in favour of bank. Therefore, false case has been registered against him. Confinement may bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience and other than atrocities Act all offences fall under the category of judgment rendered by Apex Court in case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. Private complaint is of the year 2010.

3. Learned counsels for the respondent No.1/ State as well as complainant have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

5. Considering the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court intends to allow the appeal. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/trial Court.

6. This order shall remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant:-

(i) The appellant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

(v). The appellant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

(vi) The appellant shall not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance and information.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Vikram VIKRAM SINGH 2023.04.06 10:57:23 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court