Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganesh Prasad Burman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2020
Author: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
Bench: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
1 CRA-4118-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-4118-2020
(GANESH PRASAD BURMAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-09-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Surendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhasker Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2. though notice has been served.
Heard.
T h e appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as "SC/ST Act" ) being aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Dindori in Bail application No.212/2020, whereby the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
T h e appellant is in jail since 12.07.2020 in connection with crime No.105/2020 registered at Police Station-Mehandwani, District-Dindori, for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1) (W)(ii), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, crime No.105/2020 was registered at Police Station Mehandwani, District Dindori, on the report lodged by the prosecutrix against the appellant. It has been alleged in the FIR that the appellant and prosecutrix were previously known to each other. She was in her matrimonial house and on 03.07.2020 when she went to take bath at a canal, the appellant came there and asked her for sexual favour but she categorically denied the appellant by saying that now she is married and she will not allow to do so. The appellant forcibly took her on a motorcycle in the forest and committed rape upon her. After taking a round on the motorcycle, the appellant dropped the prosecutrix at her parental house. She narrated the Signature Not SAN Verified whole story to her parents and when her husband came, she also narrated the Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2020.09.14 15:33:35 IST 2 CRA-4118-2020 whole story to him and, thereafter, she lodged a report against the appellant in the concerned police station.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely b een implicated in the case. Before the incident, the appellant and the prosecutrix were having sexual relationship with each other. On the date of incident, the prosecutrix called the appellant and, therefore, at that time, she was a consenting party. After 8 days of the incident, when the prosecutrix came to know that the appellant belongs to General caste and she belongs to the caste listed in the SC/ST category, therefore, to receive the compensation amount from the government, she has lodged a false complaint against the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 12.07.2020 and trial will take considerable time for conclusion, therefore, it is prayed that the appellant be enlarged on bail.
O n the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the prayer and drew the attention of this Court towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, it reveals that the prosecutrix was a married lady, at the time of incident and she knew the appellant very well. The FIR has been lodged after 8 days of the incident. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the appellant is not required for further investigation. Considering all these facts and circumstances and also considering the present situation of wide spread of Covid-19 virus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail.
Consequently, this appeal for bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
It is directed that the appellant-Ganesh Prasad Burman shall be Signature Not released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- SAN Verified Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2020.09.14 15:33:35 IST 3 CRA-4118-2020 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
J a il authorities and State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus, before and after releasing the appellant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN)
JUDGE
kundan
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
KUNDAN SHARMA
Date: 2020.09.14
15:33:35 IST