Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tinu Alias Laxman Parte vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3037 of 2022
Between:-
TINU ALIAS LAXMAN PARTE S/O OMPRAKASH
PARTE , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR R/O UMAVIHAR COLONY BLOCK NO. 5
ASHOKA GARDEN BHOPAL PERMANENT R/O
VILLAGE SANWAL MEDA TAHSIL BHAISDEHI
DISTRICT BETUL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ASHISH TIWARI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT BETUL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NIRMALA W/O LATE SHRI HARIPRASAD GOHE
R/O COMPANY GARDEN, TIKARI, POLICE
STATION KOTWALI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUDEEP CHATERJEE, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This First appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 7.3.2022 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act, Betul (MP), whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.
Appellant is in custody since 22.6.2021 in connection with Crime No.475/2021 registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District-Betul (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2)
(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Signature Not Verified SANIt is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.04.19 14:12:15 IST and he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is alleged that statement of 2 9 witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court and they have not supported the prosecution story. It is submitted that it is case of circumstantial evidence and no direct connectivity with the present appellant is shown by the prosecution. He has been roped up in the case only on the basis of memo of Section 27 of the Act of co-accused Yogesh and Pushpa. The dead body has been recovered only on the instance of co-accused Pushpa and Yogesh who are already in custody. The appellant is the first offender. He is in custody since 22.6.2021 and there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present appellant, therefore, it has been prayed that the appellant be released on bail.
Per contra, counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the application stating that there are specific allegations of inflicting injury to the deceased against the present appellant as has been stated in the statement of other co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Act. But he could not dispute the fact that there is no recovery from the present appellant. He further admitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and 9 witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court and they have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is argued that the seizure witnesses have yet to be recorded but the fact remains that there is no recovery from the present appellant. The appellant being the first offender as per the case diary record is also not disputed by the State counsel.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the merits of the case, subject to verification of the fact that the appellant is the first offender, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this appeal. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-
1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;Signature Not Verified
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;SAN Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.04.19 14:12:15 IST promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her 3 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The appellant shall not involve any other offence, in case the applicant indulges in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. If the appellant is found involved in any other case except what has been stated above, this bail shall stand rejected without reference to the court;
8. The appellant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed to follow the Covid Protocol as per guidelines.
Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
E-copy of this order be provided to the appellant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.
CC as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE irfan Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.04.19 14:12:15 IST