Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-3534-2017
(SANJEEV VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-10-2017
Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Pandey, P.L. for the respondent No.1/State.
None present from the respondent No.2/complainant despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1.
Case diary perused and arguments heard. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 24/8/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhopal; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.280/2017 registered at P.S. Gautam Nagar, District Bhopal, (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 294, 506, 452, 427, 34 of the I.P.C., and Section 11(4), 12 of POCSO Act and also under Sections 3 (1)ba, da, dha, 3(2)(5-ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
[2] As per prosecution case, on 11/6/2017 at about 8 p.m., when complainant was going to her house along with her daughter prosecutrix, on the way near Ravidas Temple, the appellant molest to the prosecutrix and caught hold her hand and when complainant rescue him the appellant also abused her and threatened her to kill. Thereafter, on 14/6/2017 she lodged the report. On that report, police registered Crime no.280/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 294, 506, 452, 427, 34 of the I.P.C., and Section 11(4), 12 of POCSO Act and also under Sections 3 (1)ba, da, dha, 3(2)(5-ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the matter. During investigation, on 19/8/2017 police arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 24/8/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.
[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. The incident has been allegedly occurred on 11/6/2017 while the prosecutrix lodged the report on 14/6/2017, there is no plausible explanation regarding the delay. The appellant is in custody since 19/8/2017, so appellant be released on bail.
[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the appellant.
[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that appellant is in custody since 19/8/2017 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed.
[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
[7] 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. T h e a p p e l l a n t w i l l c o o p e r a t e i n theinvestigation/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 fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
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; and
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-