Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2017
1
Cr.A.No.3406/2017
10/10/2017
Shri S.S. Parihar, counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri K.K. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 23/08/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhatarpur, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.130/2017, registered at Police Station Harpalpur, District Chhatarpur for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (r), 3(1)(s) & 3 (2)(5 ka) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, who apprehend their arrest in the crime.
As per prosecution case, on 12/08/2017 complainant Smt. Rammurti lodged the report at Police Station Harpalpur averring that at 11:30 AM when she was at home, applicants came to her house and abused her with insulting words regarding caste. When her son Kuldeep came out from the house, applicant No.1 Anil caught hold his hand and applicant 2 No.3 Ankit assaulted him by stick on his head and back. Applicant No.2 Santoshi also assaulted her by stick in his back. Applicant No.4 Bablu Pathak also abused her and threatened to kill her. On that report, the police registered Crime No.130/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (r), 3(1)(s) & 3 (2)(5 ka) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected. Being aggrieved by that order, present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the matter. On the date of incident at 11:00 AM Prabhudayal husband of the complainant and Dilip abused to Anil. Thereafter, Dilip, Chotu and Prabhudayal assaulted the applicant Anil Kumar by stick, who sustained injuries on his head, right leg and left knee. When Pankaj Patel came to rescue him, they also assaulted Pankaj Patel by stick, who also sustained injuries on his head, both hands, left thigh and back. On the report of Anil Kumar Police also registered Crime No.129/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 323, 294, 506, 427, 34 of the IPC against Dilip, Chotu @ Kuldeep and Prabhudayal. It is further submitted that as a counter blast complainant lodged false report against the applicants.
3Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants committed the said act against the complainant knowingly that she belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Further, the act of the appellants does not come under the purview of the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. So the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. Hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State and objector opposed the application stating that in the incident applicants also abused the complainant with insulting words regarding caste, therefore, offence under Section 3 (1) (r), 3(1)(s) & 3 (2)(5 ka) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also made out.
Although offence under Sections 3 (1) (r), 3(1)(s) & 3 (2)(5 ka) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been registered against the applicants and according to Section 18 of the Act provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to the persons committing an offence under the Act, but in Pankaj D. Suthar V/s. State Of Gujarat reported in (1992) 1 GLR 405 while considering the scope of Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the Gujarat High Court observed as under :-
"Section 18 of the Atrocities Act gives a vision, direction and mandate to the Court as to the cases where the anticipatory bail must be refused, but it does not and it certainly cannot whisk away the right of any Court to have a 4 prima facie judicial scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint. Nor can it under its hunch permit provisions of law being abused to suit the mala fide motivated ends of some unscrupulous complainant."
Apex Court also in the case of Vilas Pandurang and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795 held as under :-
"The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record."
Which shows that in the crime registered for the offences under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out.
From perusal of the case diaries of Crime Nos.129/2017 and 130/17 it appears that firstly the applicant Anil Kumar lodged the report against the complainant party, thereafter as a counter blast complainant Smt. Rammurti lodged the report against the applicants. Injury report of the applicant Anil Kumar and Pankaj attached with the case diary of Crime No.129/2017 shows that both of them sustained four injuries, while from perusal of medical report of complainant Smt. Rammurti it appears that she sustained no external injury.
5Likewise, Kuldeep sustained only one abrasion in the incident. While in the FIR it is mentioned that in the incident applicant No.3 Ankit assaulted Kuldeep by stick on his head and back and Applicant No.2 Santoshi assaulted complainant by stick in his back.
So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellants in Crime No.130/2017 registered at Police Station Harpalpur, District Chhatarpur, the present appellants be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, (Atrocities), Chhatarpur.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellants :
1. The appellants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;
2. The appellants will co-operate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The appellants will not indulge themselves 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;6
4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;
5. The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicants 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 concerned Court for compliance.
Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/