Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Narendra Singh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2019
1 CRA-1902-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1902-2019
(DR. NARENDRA SINGH RAGHUWANSHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-03-2019
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Deepak Raghuwanshi and Shri
Pradeep Hazari, Advocate for the appellant -accused.
Shri Som Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the respondent no.1 /State.
Shri Siddharth Radhelal Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.2 / complainant. IA No.2715/2019 filed by the complainant is taken on record.
Heard.
This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A (1) of the SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 9.2.2019 passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhopal, District Bhopal in bail application no. 401/19 whereby the court below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1/19 Police Station A.J.K., Bhopal, offences registered under section 294 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (da) r/w Sec. 3 (1) (dha) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
On behalf of the appellant -accused it is contended that against the appellant on the basis of the application filed under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Bhopal, a FIR of the aforesaid offences has been registered and the appellant is apprehending to be arrested on the strength of the application filed under Section 156 (3) of CrPC, in which it is stated that the appellant is working as a Director in Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal and the complainant is working as an Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Technology Department of the said Institute and belongs to scheduled caste community, the benefit of promotion given earlier was withdrawn illegally, about which, he submitted so many representations to the Directors of the Institute including the appellant. On 24.9.2018 when he went to meet the appellant he was told to come after two days then he again went on 26.9.2018 to his office and disclosed his grievance. The appellant despite considering his grievance shows his angriness and said that do not waste his time nothing can be done in his case and used filthy language denoting his caste to humiliate him. When he resisted, the appellant again started abusing with derogatory remarks using his caste and threatened to kill him and to take his service. The aforesaid obscene language was used by the appellant out of the chamber near the gate in public view and the incident was witnessed by one Sunil. About the aforesaid conduct of the appellant, he filed a complaint before the Police AJK, Bhopal and also reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and other higher authorities but no action has been taken by the police, therefore, the application has been filed for issuing direction to register the FIR against the appellant and investigate the matter.
It is further submitted that on account of failing in legal litigation to restore his promotion the complainant has made false allegation against the appellant maliciously to take revenge from the appellant. While the complaint was made by the complainant to the police, the police made inquiry and found that the allegations are false and just to create pressure on the Director with regard to the dispute of the promotion pending before this court as written by the In-charge Police Station AJK, Bhopal vide letter dated 6.12.2018 to the S. P, 2 CRA-1902-2019 Bhopal (AJK) and without disclosing the consequences of the inquiry, application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC was filed. Consequently, learned Special Judge in absence of the fact of this inquiry has ordered to register the case. Mere registration of the case is not amount that the prosecution has prima facie case against the appellant. Inquiry report prepared after taking all the relevant witnesses exonerated the appellant. Therefore, merely on the application direction has been given by the learned Special Judge. It cannot be said that there is a prima facie case against the appellant to commit the offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to arrest the appellant as no purpose will be served except to tarnish his image or support unscrupulous complainant to settle their score by ways of malicious criminal proceedings. Hence, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Therefore, this appeal be accepted and he be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2/ complainant and the learned Govt. Advocate opposed the aforesaid contentions vehemently contending that in view of the opinion of the learned Special Judge with regard to having prima facie case against the appellant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act no further scrutiny is required to see the fact that whether there is a prima facie case or not against the appellant. It is also contended that the complainant has been continuously harassed and subjected to unnecessary litigation with a view to deprive him of the benefit of promotion and when he went to meet the appellant to settle his point of view about the dispute, the appellant dealt him with inhuman manner and defamed and harassed by abusing with the words of his caste. The appellant is the person occupying higher post, such type of behavior is not forgettable and he deserves to be arrested. Further submitted that the appellant is trying to influence the witnesses and material witness Sunil has been threatened. This circumstance shows that the appellant is interfering with the investigation. Hence, he is not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail and prayed for rejection of the appeal.
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of the inquiry report submitted by In-charge of the Police Station AJK, Bhopal with regard to the complaint of the complainant, prima facie establishes that there is no case against the appellant. About the same allegation, the case has been registered on the direction of the learned Special Judge, hiding the consequence of the inquiry for the purpose of deciding whether the prima facie case is made out or not. Mere statement of one Sunil is not sufficient. Whole result of the inquiry shows the background of the incident and cause of the incident and probability with regard to veracity of the allegations and looking to the background of the incident, possibility of false allegation cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in this case, at present stage it cannot be said that prosecution has prima facie case against the appellant with regard to commission of offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not attracted here.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 / complainant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex court in Manju Devi vs. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia @ Omkarjeet Singh and others, (2017) 13 SCC 439 in which in paragraph 21 of the judgment it is held that when the Magistrate and Sessions Judge and the High Court itself fond that there is a prima facie case in connection with taking cognizance of the offence then at the stage of application under Section 438 of CrPC it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case made out. Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
But so far as the present case is concerned, the facts and circumstances are different here. With regard to complaint of the complainant primarily inquiry was made by the Police 3 CRA-1902-2019 and concluded that prima facie no case is made out. Having concealed the aforesaid facts registration of the FIR on the direction given by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act under Section 156 (3) of CrPC having regard the observation that there is prima face offence is made out from the averment of the application, it cannot be said that this finding is binding on this court while considering anticipatory bail application. At the stage of hearing of the application under Section 438 of CrPC all the material available on record on the date of hearing is required to be considered. Mere finding or observation by the Special Judge or the Magistrate is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that prima facie offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out or not. Hence, in view of this court, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case prima facie against the appellant. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not attracted here.
So far as the observation made with regard to threatening to witness Sunil is concerned, in his complaint he has not named the appellant as the person who threatened him. He has simply stated that some unknown person threatened him on the phone in connection with the statement given by him in the case. Such type of objection which is vague or may be created falsely, it cannot be said that the appellant is involved in interfering with the investigation. Apart from it, the statement of Sunil has already been recorded by the police earlier, therefore, there was no occasion to give any threat to him. Hence, this contention has no merit.
In view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, there is no need to arrest the appellant and on behalf of the State, it is not contended that his arrest is required for effective investigation or he is not cooperating in the investigation. Therefore, no purpose will be served from the arrest of the appellant except to tarnish his image. In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. It is ordered that if the appellant - accused Dr. Narendra Singh Raghuwanshi surrenders before the concerned police station within 15 days from today or arrested by the Investigating officer / Arresting Authority, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond and surety bond each for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only). If he failed to do so, the effect of this order shall be vacated automatically.
The appellant accused is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co- operate with the investigation. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
It is made clear that any observation made in the order shall not influence the proceeding of the trial court in any way.
CC as per rules.
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE JP Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2019.03.13 19:21:45 +05'30'