Madhya Pradesh High Court
Udaybhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2017
CRA-2573-2016
(UDAYBHAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
04-04-2017
Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.
At the outset of hearing, learned Panel Lawyer has made an open court statement that the notice of hearing of this appeal could not be served upon the complainant as he has been on sick leave. Although the notice has been sent to him by means of âWhats Appâ upon his cell-phone. Moreover, the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, has granted written permission to score out the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short âthe Actâ) from the array of offences whereunder the case is registered.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present, this appeal is finally heard at the motion stage after admitting it.
1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Act against the order dated 01.09.2016 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Rewa in Bail Application No.45/2016, whereby their bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case for adjudication of this appeal are that on 12.08.2016 complainant Vijay Ahirwar was posted as the Station House Officer at Police Station Jawa of Rewa district. On that day, he got an input that appellant Udaybhan Singh from his grocery shop at village Parasia sells liquor illegally and a huge quantity of liquor is being unloaded unto his shop from a Bolero Jeep. Thereupon, he along with a police party reached his shop. Upon the search of the jeep, he found that Indian factories made foreign spirit and Indian factories made country spirit is kept in two cartoons in bottles of various size and 150 liters diesel is also kept therein. He also found 152 bottles of foreign spirit in his shop. While he was making seizure Panchnama of the spirit, appellants namely Udaybhan Singh, Rakesh Singh, Pramod Singh, Brajendra Singh, Suresh Singh and four to five unknown persons put hindrance in making the said Panchnama and they also humiliated him by calling his caste name because he is a member of the scheduled caste community. They also threatened him to get his police uniform put off exercising their political connections. The complainant lodged the written FIR at the Police Station Jawa on the same day. Thereupon, a case at Crime No.110/2016 is registered against the appellants and four to five unknown offenders for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 353, 186 and 34 of the IPC and 3(1(x) of the Act.
3. The appellants filed a joint bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being No.45/2016 before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Rewa. Vide the impugned order he rejected the bail application on the ground that the appellants put hindrance in the official duties of the complainant and the police party accompanied him and that they humiliated him by his caste name as he belongs to the scheduled caste community. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the statement of the learned Panel Lawyer, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has been deleted from the array of offences in the case, therefore, the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, which prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail, is not applicable in the case. He submits that on the date of incident, the complainant and the police party searched appellant Udaybhan Singh's grocery shop, saying that he sells illegal spirit. They have not found out any bottle of spirit even an empty bottle of spirit. They took out Rs.22,000/- from the cash box of his shop and when they were taking the money with them, the appellants and other persons objected to their said act. Thereupon, this false case has been foisted upon the appellants and others. He submits that this fact is proved on the basis that the registration number of the alleged bolero jeep is neither written in the FIR nor the seizure memo. Moreover, the jeep was not seized. He submits that the appellants are a permanent resident of village Parasia and that they have no criminal antecedents. He submits that looking to the allegations levelled against the appellants, their custodial interrogations are not required. He also assures on behalf of the appellants that they would co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation of the case, if they are released on anticipatory bail. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants, allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned order of rejection of bail.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer on the ground that the appellants had prevented the complainant and the police party from discharging their official duties, which is a serious offence.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsels and removal of the offence under the Act, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to appellants. Hence, I allow the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. Appellants Udaybhan Singh, Rakesh Singh, Pramod Singh, Brijendra Singh and Suresh Singh are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case on or before 28.04.2017 for interrogations and submission of documentary proofs of their permanent residential addresses and contact numbers, if any and the Investigating Officer is directed that if he arrests the appellants in the case under the aforesaid Sections, then he will release them immediately on bail upon their furnishing âeachâ a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five) with one solvent surety of the same amount to his satisfaction. Further they will abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if any of the appellants fails to appear before the Investigating Officer within the stipulated period, then the order of grant of anticipatory bail shall automatically stand cancelled in respect of him.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE haider