Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind @ Mohit Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7958 of 2021
Between:-
ARVIND @ MOHIT GUPTA S/O BHOLA
PRASAD GUPTA , AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE SUARAHA
P.S BARGADH (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RAVINANDAN DWIVEDI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
P.S. DABHOURA REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GAYATRI DEVI KOL W/O JAGJEEVAN KOL ,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE TILO PS PANWAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI AMIT BHURRAK, PANEL LAWYER )
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI V.K. PANDEY, ADVOCATE)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
T h e present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act, Rewa (MP), whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.
Appellant is in custody since 08.12.2021 in connection with Crime No.78/2021 registered at Police Station- Dabhoura, District Rewa (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 & 506 IPC and Section 3 (2)
(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
I t is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the Signature Not Verified SAN matter and he has not committed any offence in any manner. Investigation is Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.09 14:29:27 IST 2 over and the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. It is argued that the complainant has also given an affidavit on 13.12.2021 to the effect that she has no objection if the applicant is released on bail. It is argued that the victim is a major lady and habitual of making such report. On earlier occasion also, she lodged a complaint which was registered vide Crime No.48/2021 and thereafter she has given affidavit on 26.11.2021. In the present case, the incident was of 06.12.2021 and an FIR was registered on the same day and the appellant was arrested on 07.12.2021. The appellant is the first offender and is under custody since 08.12.2021. There is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present appellant. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering the bail application. On these grounds, h e prays for grant of bail to the appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the application stating that the FIR was prompt, there is no delay in lodging in FIR. The victim has categorically stated regarding commission of offence by the present appellant in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.. but he could not dispute the fact that the victim has given an affidavit on 13.12.2021, which is filed alongwith this application. The factum, that on earlier occasion also, the similar incident took place and the FIR was registered by the victim and thereafter she has compromised the matter, is not disputed by the state counsel. Filing of the charge-sheet and the appellant being the first offender is also not disputed by the state counsel.
Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 i.e. complainant has submitted no objection if the bail application of the applicant is allowed on the basis of the affidavit given by the victim.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the prosecution story reveals that the victim was forcefully taken on a motorcycle to a distant place and then the offence was committed. Now she has given an affidavit on Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.09 14:29:27 IST 3 13.12.2021 itself stating that she has no objection if the bail is granted to the present applicant. On earlier occasion also, the similar incident took place and she had again compromised the matter with that person. It appears that the victim is habitual for getting a false case registered and taking advantage of the scheme of the state government whereby the state government is providing the monetary help to the victims of the SC/ST communities if such offence is taken place. She has totally resiled from her statement which was given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court by giving an affidavit on 13.12.2021. In such circumstances, this Court deem it appropriate to direct to learned trial Court to check the genuineness of the affidavit dated 13.12.2021 and if the same found to be genuine then take appropriate steps for registering a case of perjury against the complainant, as she has resiled from her statement given before the Court. The entire proceedings should be done in accordance with law.
As far the present application is concerned, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, subject to verification of the fact that the appellant is the first offender, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this appeal. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
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 her;
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The appellant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.09 14:29:27 IST 4 as the case may be;
4. The appellant shall not involve any other offence, in case the appellant indulges in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. If the appellant is found involved in any other case except what has been stated above, this bail shall stand rejected without reference to the court;
8. The appellant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about her residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
I n view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before releasing the appellant, medical examination of appellant shall be undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima-facie, if it is found that she is having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured, otherwise appellant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence.
Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
E-copy of this order be provided to the appellant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.
CC as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA) Signature Not Verified JUDGE SAN sj Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.09 14:29:27 IST 5 Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.09 14:29:27 IST