Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durga Prajapati (Adivasi) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2020
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5482/2020
(Durga Prajapati Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.)
Gwalior Bench Dated :7/11/2020
Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.S.Ghuraiya, learned PP for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Arshad Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Matter is heard through Video Conferencing. The appellant has filed this second appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 6/9/2020 passed by trial Court; whereby, application of appellant preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Appellant has been arrested on 2/9/2020 by Police Station Satanwada, District Shivpuri, in connection with Crime No.104/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 344, 376/34 of IPC and Sections 3(i)(w)(2) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. First appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that false case has been registered against him and he is suffering confinement since 2.9.2020. Learned counsel for the appellant referred the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which does not 2 indicate commission of offence of rape. Even otherwise, since beginning role of appellant is confined to offence under Section 344 of IPC and not under Section 376 of IPC. Appellant is aged 60 years and is father of prime accused Rahul. Charge-sheet has already been filed and appellant does not bear any criminal record. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. He undertakes to cooperate in trial and would not be a source of embarrassment/harassment to the complainant party in any manner. On these premises, he prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer made by the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the criminal appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as fact situation of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and impugned order dated 6.9.2020 is set-aside in the following terms. It is hereby directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
3
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-
1.The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournment during the trial and he shall not move in the vicinity of the prosecutrix and shall not be a source of embarrassment/harassment to the complainant party in any manner;
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible from the office of this Court.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(Anand Pathak) Judge ms/-
MADHU SOODAN PRASAD 2020.11.09 11:02:45 -08'00'