Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhaniram Patel @ Butan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.3338/2018
Jabalpur, Dated:08.05.2018
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Manish Awasthi, learned Government Advocate for
respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal of appellant No.3 Manish Patel.
Prayer is allowed.
The appeal of appellant No.3 is dismissed being withdrawn. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Narsinghpur in Bail Application No.158/18 whereby the application filed by the remaining appellants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
The remaining appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.66/2018 at Police Station - Suatala, District Narsinghpur, offences registered under sections 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act.
The allegation against the remaining appellants is that on 23.03.2018 at about 4:00 p.m. when the complainant cutting the wheat crop with his father, at that time, the accused came and started abuses and also assaulted with lathi to the complainant in which the complainant received the injuries.
It is submitted that the remaining appellants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no material to establish the offence. Hence, this appeal be allowed by setting-
2aside the impugned order and the remaining appellants be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned GA opposing the submissions made on behalf of the remaining appellants has prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail and also stated that in view of the averments in the FIR and other evidence collected during investigation, all the ingredients are established and disclosing commission of offence punishable under Section SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, the appeal be disallowed.
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that prima facie it is established that the remaining appellants have committed the aforesaid crime. Hence, in view of provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, they are not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, the prayer is rejected.
However, learned counsel has also submitted that the concerning Police officer be directed to observe and record the reason necessary for the arrest of the remaining appellants as per the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another passed in Criminal appeal No.416/2018 decided on 20.3.2018 and by this Court in Ajeet Jain vs. State of M.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1757/2018 decided on 4.4.2018, so that the remaining appellants may not be harassed by unnecessary arrest. The prayer seems to be reasonable. As prima facie looking to the nature of the offence, the remaining appellants' arrest is not warranted. Hence, in case of their arrest by the competent authority, it is expected from the Police officer concerned to observe the guidelines and directions given by the Apex court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. 3 State of Maharashtra and another passed in Criminal appeal no.416/2018 decided on 20.3.2018 and by this Court in Ajeet Jain vs. State of M.P. passed in Criminal appeal no.1757/2018 decided on 4.4.2018.
C.C. as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge vc Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2018.05.09 14:46:48 +05'30'