Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-4126-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-4126-2020
(RAKESH KUMAR KHARE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-10-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri B.S. Kushwaha, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri H.K. Golhani, learned counsel for the objector. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he wants to withdraw the said bail application in relation to appellant No.2-Amit Kumar Khare.
Prayer is allowed.
This bail application in relation to appellant No.2-Amit Kumar Khare is stand dismissed as withdrawn.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in form of anticipatory bail application has been filed by the appellant No.1-Rakesh, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2020, passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Damoh, District-Damoh, by which, bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant No.1 has been dismissed.
The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.127/2020 registered at Police Station-Taradehi, District Damoh (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 34 of IPC as well as Section 3 (1) (r), 3(1) (s) and 3 (2) (v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
As per prosecution case, on 27.05.2020, at about 03:00 pm, complainant-Ramesh along with his wife-Janki went to forest for collecting firewood for which he had given Rs.1000/- to appellant No.1. When they were returning back, on the way, son/co-accused of appellant No.1 met them and made illegal demanded of Rs.500/-. On refusal, co-accused inflicted injury to the complainant with wooden stick remarking on his caste.
2 CRA-4126-2020 Thereafter, appellant No.1 reached there and committed marpeet with the wife of complainant. Thereafter, a case has been registered against the present appellant and other co-accused.
Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that appellant is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that appellant is working as forest guard and on the day of incident when the complainant and his wife were going to collect firewood he stopped them and found other precious woods along with firewood without having any valid document. Thereafter, appellant registered a forest case against the complainant and seized the aforesaid woods. Being aggrieved by the action taken by the appellant, complainant lodged the false complaint misusing his caste. No overt act attributed to the appellant. He further submits that neither the appellant humiliated the complainant on the basis of his caste within public view nor used any other abuse words to him or his wife. The appellant has filed a representation dated 19.06.2020 before S.P. Damoh regarding his false implication but no action has been taken by the authority. It is further submitted that appellant is not having any criminal past, working under government service and if he does not release on bail, his career would be ruined. He also submits that there is no material available on record for constituting the offence of SC/ST Act against him, therefore, bar of Section 18 would not come on the way of present appellant. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Per-contra, learned P.L. for the respondent-State as well as counsel for the objector oppose the anticipatory bail application submitting that there is no provision to grant anticipatory under Section SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, Therefore, order of learned trial Court is a proper and no interference is warranted in this case.
Since, learned P.L. for the respondent/State raised the objection regarding maintainability of this anitcipatory bail application under the garb of 3 CRA-4126-2020 Section 18-A of SC/ST Act. It is true, under SC/ST Act, Section 18 and 18- A restricted the Court to grant of anticipatory bail but in view of the recent mandate of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prithavi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in 2020 SCC OnLine 159, the principle is emerged that if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of SC/ST Act, the bar created by Section 18 and 18-A shall not apply.
Here in the case, appellant under service of Forest Department and prima facie shows that on the day of incident he was on duty. The allegation against the present appellant is that he took some money from the complainant to allow him collect firewood but when his son/co-accused also made illegal demand of sum from the complainant and assaulted him, he reached there and committed marpeet with the wife of complainant. Prima facie, the FIR does not indicates any abuse relating to caste remarks against the complainant or his wife by the appellant No.1.
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act provide that whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate or abuse any member of SC or ST community in any place within public view, shall be liable for punishment. Under the SC/ST Act, word 'Public View' has not been defined. In the present case, statement of any independent witness has not been recorded by the police, even more, as per FIR, the incident seems to have been occurred in forest area and complainant did not disclose the name of any person except his wife who saw the incident. Therefore, prima facie, requirements of 'public view' is found disturbed. The appellant has also filed the copy of report lodged against the complainant on the day of incident i.e. 27.05.2020 therein it is reflected that some precious woods were seized from the complainant, thereafter, a forest offence is also registered against him and at that time, appellant was discharging his official duty. In his written complaint, the complainant has not specified the fact being upper caste the appellant contrary to spirit of Section 3 (2) (v-a) of SC/ST Act. There is no 4 CRA-4126-2020 material in the case diary to show that appellant No.1 and complainant were known to each other prior to this incident.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, prima facie no case is made out against the appellant under Section SC/ST Act and there is sufficient reasons are found to release him on anticipatory bail. Consequently, without commenting on merits, this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby allowed.
It is directed that the appellant-Rakesh Kumar Khare will surrender himself before Investigating Officer of the concerned police station, within ten days' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and then in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
It is further directed that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Police Officer as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
C.c as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.10.19 12:22:25 +05'30'