Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramhet Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No.4880/2021
(Ramhet Meena Versus State of M.P. and another )
Gwalior, Dated:-25.8.2021
Shri Arun Barua, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kaushlendra Singh Tomar, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) (1)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 3.8.2021 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Guna, whereby the application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected in connection with Crime No.123/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali Guna for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332, 294, 341, 506, 147, 148, 149, 325 and 333 of IPC and sections 3 (1) (da), 3 (1) (gha) and 3 (2) (Va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that at the time of consideration of appeal for grant of anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.6.2021 passed in Cr.A.No.3458/2021 there was no offence registered under sections 325 and 333 of IPC. After bail application was allowed and at the time of furnishing bail bonds before the Trial Court, the Trial Court has observed on 3.8.2021 that offence under section 325 and 333 of IPC has been enhanced against the appellant. 2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.4880/2021 (Ramhet Meena Versus State of M.P. and another ) On query made to the learned Govt. Advocate that when the offence under section 325 and 333 of IPC has been enhanced, then he submits that the offence under sections 325 and 333 of IPC were enhanced on 18.6.2021, though fracture was found on 15.3.2021, but he fairly submits that no offence was registered initially under section 325 of IPC, it is only registered after 18.6.2021 when this Court has already allowed an application giving benefit of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 on 11.6.2021. It is argued that there is no allegation of inflicting main injury on the appellant. Considering the appellant is a government servant working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Verg III, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of anticipatory bail and the fact that benefit of Arnesh Kumar (supra) was extended to him.
Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.
Consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail . The appeal is allowed.
It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer/trial 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.4880/2021 (Ramhet Meena Versus State of M.P. and another ) Court, as the case may be with submission of written undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic and he will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed.
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 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.
7. 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 learned counsel for the State to send E-copy 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.4880/2021 (Ramhet Meena Versus State of M.P. and another ) of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as concerned Superintendent of Police who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
As it is reported that the fracture was found in the MLC on 15.3.2021 and the fracture was reported despite of the same the investigating officer has not registered the offence under section 325 of IPC. It is only after the bail application was allowed and when the appellant has approached the Trial Court for furnishing the bail bonds on 18.6.2021 the sections were enhanced where the matter be brought to the Superintendent of Police, District Guna to call for the explanation of the Investigating Officer and take appropriate action against him for doing defective investigation.
Let the action taken report be produced within a period of one month before the Principal Registrar of this Court.
This order be read conjointly with the order dated 11.6.2021 passed in Cr.A.No.3458/2021 by this Court.
A copy of this order be kept in the record of Cr.a.No.3458/2021.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(Vishal Mishra) Judge Pawar* ASHISH PAWAR 2021.08.26 14:15:14 +05'30'