Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2018
1 CRA-4071-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-4071-2018
(RAJEEV GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-07-2018
Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Brajendra Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1/State.
Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu, counsel for the vicitm.
Heard on this appeal for anticipatory bail under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, filed on behalf of appellant Rajeev Gupta in Crime No.236/2018, registered by P.S. Beohari, District-Shahdol (M.P.), under Sections 294, 323, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(5-ka) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shahdol, in Bail Application No.08/2018.
As per the prosecution case, on 10.05.2018, victims Savita Singh Gond and her husband Ramji Singh Gond had purchased certain garments from the ready- made clothes shop of petitioner Rajeev Gupta. When they went home, they found that one piece of garment was missing; therefore, they went again to his shop on 11.05.2018 and asked him to give the missing garment; whereon, the appellant refused to give them the garment and filthily abused them and addressed the victims in a derogatory manner with reference to their Scheduled Caste and beat the victims with stick. As a result, victims Ramji Singh Gond sustained injury above his right eye and above left ear. Savita Singh Gond also sustained injuries.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. He was not aware of the tribal identity of the victims because they had simply gone to his shop to purchase the garments. The victims wanted to exchange garments purchased by them ten days earlier and after using the same. It is also been submitted that the injuries sustained by the victims are simple in nature. The incident was trivial. The allegation with regard to the caste are malafide; therefore, inviting attention of the Court to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra (Cr.A.No.416/2018 dated 20th March, 2018) , it has been prayed that the appellant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State and learned counsel for the victim on the other hand have opposed the application.
The Supreme Court has held in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra (Cr.A.No.416/2018 dated 20th March, 2018) as 2 CRA-4071-2018 follows:
81. Accordingly, we direct that in absence of any other independent offence calling for arrest, in respect of offences under the Atrocities Act, no arrest may be effected, if an accused person is a public servant, without written permission of the appointing authority and if such a person is not a public servant, without written permission of the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District. Such permissions must be granted for recorded reasons which must be served on the person to be arrested and to the concerned court. As and when a person arrested is produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate must apply his mind to the reasons recorded and further detention should be allowed only if the reasons recorded are found to be valid. To avoid false implication, before FIR is registered, preliminary enquiry may be made whether the case falls in the parameters of the Atrocities Act and is not frivolous or motivated.
Consideration of present case
82. As far as the present case is concerned, we find merit in the submissions of learned amicus that the proceedings against the appellant are liable to be quashed.
Conclusions
83. Our conclusions are as follows:
i) Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process of court and are quashed.
ii) There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D Suthar (supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai (supra) and clarify the judgments of this Court in Balothia (supra) and Manju Devi (supra);
ii) In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-
public servant after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention.
iv) To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.
v) Any violation of direction (iii) and (iv) will be actionable by way of disciplinary action as well as contempt.
The above directions are prospective.
As such, the scope for grant of anticipatory bail has been considerably widened. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it would be appropriate to dispose of this appeal for anticipatory bail with following directions:
A preliminary enquiry shall be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.
The appellants shall not be arrested before approval by the S.S.P., which may be granted if deemed appropriate and necessary for reasons to be recorded. Such reasons shall be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention.
3 CRA-4071-2018 Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid directions.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Sha SHALINI SINGH LANDGE 2018.07.03 23:07:40
-07'00'