Madhya Pradesh High Court
Robin Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 Cr.A.No. 8857/2018
(Robin Singh Parihar Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior Bench:
Dated 27/11/2018
Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kuldeep singh, learned PP for the respondent No. 1/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 26/10/2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Datia; whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.
Appellant is in custody since 29/4/2018 in connection with Crime No. 46/2018 registered at Police Station Seondha, District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 294, 506-B of IPC, 5/6 of POCSO Act, Sections 3 (2) (v), 3 (1) (w) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 67-B of IT Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of false implication. Prosecutrix has not supported the story of the prosecution and has turned hostile. It is the case of love relationship, which later on turned soured and resulted into registration of FIR. No ingredient of offence under Section 376 of IPC or under the POCSO Act exists against the appellant. Appellant is in jail since 29/4/2018 and confinement amounts to pretrial detention.
Learned counsel for the State on the basis of case diary opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submits that the conduct of the appellant prima facie suggest his involvement in the case.
Counsel for the complainant also supported the case of prosecution.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
In the fact situation of the case, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the fact that he HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 Cr.A.No. 8857/2018 (Robin Singh Parihar Vs. State of M.P.) is behind the bars, as a pretrial detention and trial would take some time, without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this appeal in the following terms.
It is hereby directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 70,000/-(Rupees Seventy Thousands only) with one solvent surety of 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;
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be and would not move in the vicinity of the complainant;
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
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; and A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-
JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI 2018.11.29 10:20:39 +05'30'