Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mulayam Adiwasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 20 December, 2016
Cr.A. No.1278/2016
Mulayam and ors. vs. State of M.P.
20.12.2016
Shri D.R. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Arun Barua, P.L. for the respondent/State.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior on 26.11.2016 in bail application No.246/2016, whereby the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been dismissed.
According to prosecution case, the complainant was sleeping along with her mother, father in a Tapriya. At about 10.30 pm someone caught hold her hand. She got awaken. In the light of moonlight she saw Munna Khan and Mulayam Adivasi. When she tried to raise alarm then Mulayam pressed her mouth and also pressed her breat. They took out her where Jaswant was also standing. They told that removed her cloth and took her at haar. When her father, mother, sister and brother came to save her, Jaswant gave beating to her father. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No.330/2016 under Sections 354(a), 456, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(ka) of S.C.S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered. The appellants have been arrested. The bail application has been moved under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which has been rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this criminal appeal has been preferred.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. Prima facie a false report has been lodged on account of some dispute regarding payment of money. The appellants are in custody since 23.11.2016. There is no likelihood of their absconsion. Hence prayed that appellants are also entitled to be released on bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State supported the impugned order.
Case diary perused.
Considering the allegation against the appellants and the fact that the appellants are in custody since 23.11.2016, there is no likelihood of their absconsion, the appeal is hereby allowed. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellants:-
The appellants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;
The appellants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
The appellants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;
The appellants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and The appellants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van