Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramvaran Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2017
MCRC-3706-2017
(RAMVARAN SINGH BHADORIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
10-04-2017
Shri J.P.Mishra, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for Respondent/ State.
This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Act'), being aggrieved by the order dated 24.1.2017, passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena, whereby bail application of the appellants under Section 438 CrPC has been dismissed.
FIR bearing Crime No.16/2017 has been lodged against the appellants for the offences under Sections 3(1)(f),(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act, at Police Station- Kailaras, District Morena. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the appellants No.2 to 5 have surrendered before the trial Court, therefore, the appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Act for grant of anticipatory bail, as far as appellants No.2 to 5 are concerned, has rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants No.2 to 5 is dismissed being rendered infructuous.
The appeal in respect of appellant No.1-Smt. Shakuntala is considered.
As per the prosecution case, complainant Rani Jatav, Aganwadi Worker posted in Mini Aganwadi Centre Bhilampur made a complaint alleging that the appellant No.1 asked the students studying in the Aganwadi Centre not to consume the food prepared by the complainant for the reason that she belongs to the caste of 'Chamar'. On the basis of which, case is registered against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter due to previous enmity. No case is made out against the appellant under Sections 3(1)(f),(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. The appellant No.1 is 50 years old lady and is permanent resident of village Bhilampur, Tahsil Sabalgarh, District Morena. There is no possibility of her absconsion. On these grounds, the appellant prays for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(u) of the Act is made out against the appellant and there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act on the application under Section 438 CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail and looking to the provision of Section 18 of the Act, this appeal is not maintainable and prays for rejection of the same.
Looking to the allegation made against the appellants, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, this appeal for releasing the appellants on anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
(SUNIL KUMAR AWASTHI) JUDGE yog