Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahila Kaliya Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2017
CRA-3399-2016
(MAHILA KALIYA BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
09-01-2017
Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri P.K. Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
None for the respondent No.2/complainantâ though duly served.
At the outset of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to prosecute this criminal appeal on behalf of appellant No.4 Asharam on merits.
In view of the above statement, this criminal appeal insofar as relates to appellant No.4 Asharam is dismissed as not pressed.
On due consideration documents filed on behalf of the appellants vide I.A. No.24537/2016 are taken on records.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present, this criminal appeal is finally heard at the motion stage itself after admitting it.
1. The appellants have filed this criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), being aggrieved by the rejection of their bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., being numbered 500833/2016, vide order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge Tikamgarh under the Act.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 29.09.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., in village Amarpur appellants namely, Kaliya Bai, Gutai and Ramesh and co-accused Asharam committed marpeet with complainant/respondent No.2 Hari and his wife Uma over the distribution of crop and they gave them abuses in the name of their caste and thus they humiliated them on the ground of their caste. Upon the FIR made by the complainant, the police of Police Station Badagaon of Tikamgarh district registered a case against the appellants and the co-accused at Crime No.207/2016 under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and 3 (2) (v) of the Act. The appellants filed the bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in the case. Vide the impugned order, the learned Special Judge dismissed the bail application solely on the ground that the provisions of Section 18 of the Act prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that all the three applicants are the members of the Scheduled Tribe community. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable against them. In this connection, he draws the attention of this Court to the caste certificates of the appellants issued by the competent authority. He submits that the complainant and his wife Uma have sustained minor injuries. He submits that the appellants are the permanent residents of village Amarpur and that they have no criminal antecedents. He submits that appellant Kaliya Bai is in government job and that if she is arrested in the case, her service career will be spoiled. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.
5. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the facts that the appellants are the members of Scheduled Tribe, the complainant and his wife sustained minor injuries and the genesis of the incident is distribution of crop produced on the land which has been taken on lease by the appellants from the complainant, a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants. Hence, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order insofar as relates to them.
Appellants namely Mahila Kaliya Bai, Gutai and Ramesh are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case on or before 30.01.2017 and he is directed that if he arrests them in the case under the aforesaid Sections, then he will release them immediately on bail upon their furnishing 'each' a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousands only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to his satisfaction. Further, they will abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if any of the appellants fails to appear before the Investigating Officer within the stipulated time, then the order of grant of anticipatory bail shall automatically stand cancelled in respect of him.
6. It is also made clear that the trial court shall not be influenced directly or indirectly by any of the observations made in this order while framing charge(s) against the appellants.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE sp/-