Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandan @ Chandu Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.1082/2022
(CHANDAN @ CHANDU AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M.P. &
ANR.)
Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated : 02/02/2022
Shri Rishikesh Bohare, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State.
None for the respondent No. 2/complainant.
It is submitted by the counsel for the State that when the police tried to serve the notice under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "Act"), then she was not found at the address and her elder brother was there, who informed that the complainant is residing with him, but did not give any information about the complainant, therefore, the notice was served on the elder brother of the complainant.
Case diary is available.
This fifth repeat appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Act against the order dated 26/12/2020 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Guna, rejecting the bail application. Fourth appeal of the appellant was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 20/01/2022 passed in CRA No.8123/2021.
The appellant has been arrested on 23/09/2020 in connection with Crime No. 648/2020 registered by Police Station Aron, District Guna for offence punishable under Sections 326, 376-D, 506 of IPC 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.1082/2022 (CHANDAN @ CHANDU AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
This repeat appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that there is a delay in trial and the witnesses are not turning up in spite of the services of bailable warrants.
From the order-sheets of the Trial Court, it appears that the bailable warrants are being returned back on the ground that the witnesses Tursa Bai and Bhagwan Singh are not residing in the village for the last 3-4 months.
From the report submitted by SHO, Police Station Aron, District Guna, it is clear that the elder brother of the complainant had informed the police that the complainant is residing with him, but he refused to give any information about the whereabouts of the complainant. Thus, it appears that the complainant and witnesses are trying to avoid in giving evidence before the Court.
Be that whatever it may be.
The police cannot return the bailable warrants merely by saying that the witness is not residing in the village for the last 3-4 months. It is their duty to find out the witness and produce them before the Trial Court for her evidence.
Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Guna is directed to 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.1082/2022 (CHANDAN @ CHANDU AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) ensure that the witnesses are produced before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing positively without any fail.
With aforesaid observation, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/- Judge
Digitally signed by
PRINCEE BARAIYA
Date: 2022.02.02
16:14:41 -08'00'