Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Alias Lakhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-4943-2017
sh
(SONU ALIAS LAKHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
Gwalior, Dated : 04-12-2017
ad
Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri M.K. Chaudhary,
Pr
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri RVS Ghuraiya, Public Prosecutor for the
a
respondent/State.
hy None for the complainant.
It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the ad complainant has been informed about the pendency of this criminal M appeal as required under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the of Act of 1989").
This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Act rt of 1989 against the order dated 3/11/2017 passed by the Special ou Judge, Vidisha rejecting the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
C The appellant has been arrested on 23/10/2017 in h connection with Crime No.123/2017 registered by Police Station ig Harijan Kalyan, Vidisha for offence punishable under Sections 376, H 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (2) (v) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the Act of 1989.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the husband of the prosecutrix and the applicant were running a business of brick kiln jointly and because of some commercial clash of interest, some dispute arose between the parties. The brother of the appellant by making an application on 8/7/2017 to the SHO, Police Station Gulabganj, District Vidisha had already expressed his apprehension that they may be falsely implicated and had prayed that steps may be taken to partition the business material. The said report has been placed on record as Annexure P/2. It is further submitted that, according to the prosecution case, the mother-in-law and the children of the prosecutrix were sh sleeping in the house, whereas the incident is alleged to have e taken place at a very nearby place and, therefore, the allegation ad that since no house is situated near the place of incident, therefore, nobody had heard her screaming, is false. No external Pr injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix, which indicates the possibility of false implication of the appellant. The appellant is a hy in jail from 23/10/2017 and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or ad tampering with the prosecution case.
Per contra, the counsel for the State vehemently opposed M the appeal.
of Considering the period of detention, facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, the rt appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be released on ou bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the C satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the h Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. ig This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. H Certified copy as per rules.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2017.12.06 16:58:47 +05'30'