Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pintu @ Banwari Lal Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7935 of 2021
Between:-
PINTU @ BANWARI LAL GUPTA S/O BACHCHU
PRASAD GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR, GRAM PIPARAHA, P.S.
RAJENDRA GRAM, DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
P.S. RAJENDRA GRAM, DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI DEV KUMAR BIRGANTH S/O LATE
TITRULAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
LEDHARANTOLA BASANIHA, P.S
RAJENDRAGRAM, DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANU V. JOHN, PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 03.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Act, Anuppur, whereby the Signature Not Verified SAN Court below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section Digitally signed by ASHISH KOSHTA 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.
Date: 2022.06.20 17:07:52 IST 2T he appellant is in custody since 04.08.2021 in connection with Crime No.140/2021 (wrongly mentioned as 151/2021 in order-sheet) registered at Police Station Rajendra Gram, District Anuppur for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(n)(/k) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The present appellant has been made accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
As per the prosecution, the complainant lodged a complaint that on 31.5.2021 his deceased son went out of the house along with one Arjun; however, he did not return and the next day the body of the deceased was found lying in the field. On the basis of 161 statement of Bela Bai (PW/4), wherein she has stated that she heard the voice of the present appellant and two other persons, namely, Devendra and Rajkumar talking with the deceased, the appellant has been made an accused.
Learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of this Court to the statements of Dev Kumar Panika (PW/1), Galiram Manjhi (PW/2), Ramdas Sonwani (PW/3), Bela Bai (PW/4) and Manoharlal Panadiya (PW/5), who in their court statements have denied role of the present appellant in this case. Bela Bai (PW/4) in her evidence before the Court has denied that she knew the present appellant and also not identified him in the Court.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State submits that the present appellant has criminal antecedents and four cases were registered against him in the year 2021 itself.
Signature Not VerifiedHowever as none of the witnesses including the complainant has SAN supported the prosecution story with regard to the present appellant, he cannot Digitally signed by ASHISH KOSHTA Date: 2022.06.20 17:07:52 IST be denied bail only on the basis of his past criminal record, therefore, without 3 adverting into the merits of the case, this criminal appeal is allowed.
It is directed that appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during the trial. It is further directed that the appellant shall also comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE ak Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH KOSHTA Date: 2022.06.20 17:07:52 IST