Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-2026-2018
(MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. & ANR.)
1
JABALPUR Dated : 28.03.2018
Shri Sunil Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V.S. Mishra, learned Dy GA for the
respondent/State.
None present from the respondent No.2/complainant despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1.
Case diary perused and arguments heard.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14- A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on bail application No.85/2018 whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.316/2017 registered at P.S. Jatara, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376, 506/34 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) and 3(1)(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, who apprehend his arrest in the crime.
As per prosecution case, on 2/9/2017 prosecutrix lodged a report at P.S. Jatara averring that on 9/8/2017 when she was returning to her house co-accused Mukesh Jain came along with two other persons and forcibly took her by a four wheeler to Jhansi and from Jhansi to Udaipur, where he kept her for one THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2026-2018 (MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) 2 day and committed rape with her and then took her to Rajkot, where he kept her for two days and also committed rape with her and then he took her to Junagarh, where he kept her for 10- 12 days and again committed rape with her. After that, he took her back to Tikamgarh and threatened her to kill, if she narrated the incident to anybody. It is alleged that when prosecutrix returned back from Junagarh to Tikamgarh appellant-Manish also threatened her to kill and also abused her regarding cast on phone. Regarding incident, police registered Crime No.316/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376, 506/34 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) and 3(1)(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the matter. On that, the appellant filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 10.10.2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this matter. It is also submitted that in the case diary statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the police on 02.09.2017, it is not mentioned that the appellant also threatened the prosecutrix and abused her regarding cast. Prosecutrix for the first time in her statement, recorded by JMFC under Section 164 of CrPC, stated THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2026-2018 (MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) 3 that appellant-Manish also threatened her and abused her on phone regarding caste. From that statement also, it does not appear that appellant gave abuse to prosecutrix in a public view, so from the statement of the prosecutrix, no case under the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant, hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out from the evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation. Therefore, he should not be released on bail.
Although, offence under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) and 3(1) (da) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, has been registered against the present appellant and according to Section 18 of the Act provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to the persons committing an offence under the Act, but in Pankaj D. Suthar V/s. State Of Gujarat reported in (1992) 1 GLR 405 while considering the scope of Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the Gujarat High Court observed as under :-
"Section 18 of the Atrocities Act gives a vision, direction and mandate to the Court as to the cases where the anticipatory bail must be refused, but it does not and it certainly cannot whisk away the right of any Court to have a prima facie judicial scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint. Nor can it under its hunch permit provisions of law being THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2026-2018 (MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) 4 abused to suit the mala fide motivated ends of some unscrupulous complainant."
The Apex Court also in the case of Vilas Pandurang and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795 held as under :-
"The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record."
This shows that in the crime registered for the offences under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it is prima facie found that such an offence is not made out. In the case diary statement of the prosecutrix, there is no allegation against the present appellant that he threatened her to kill and abused her. Although in the statement of prosecutrix recorded by JMFC under Section 164 of CrPC, it is mentioned that appellant abused her regarding her caste on phone. But from that statement also prima facie it does not appear that the appellant Manish abused her regarding caste in a public view. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed without commenting on merits and it is directed that THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2026-2018 (MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) 5 in the event of arrest of appellant in Crime No. 316/2017 registered at P.S. Jatara, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) the present appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
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 them;
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 him/her 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 they are accused;
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The appellant 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 concerned SHO for compliance.
Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge anand/m Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2018.04.02 02:59:12 -07'00'