Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu @ Jahendra Singh Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2016
MCRC-3489-2016
(PAPPU @ JAHENDRA SINGH BUNDELA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
28-03-2016
Shri Rajeev Upadhyay learned counsel the applicant.
Shri A.S.Yadav, learned PL for the respondent/state.
The CD is available.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest by PS AJK, Datia in connection with Crime No.36 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 294, 341 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the Sc St Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that except the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Sc St Act, remaining offences are bailable. So far as the aforesaid offence is concerned, there is no evidence on record against the applicant- accused to connect him with the said offence. The counsel further pleads that as per prosecution story, when complainant's wife belonging to the scheduled caste went to the field of one Akhilesh Sikarwar to cut the grass, the applicant-accused came there and abused her with reference to her caste and assaulted her by means of a Hasia. The counsel further contends that in order to attract section 3 (1) (x) of Sc St Act, alleged insult or intimidation must be done with intent to humiliate particular community and merely calling someone by caste is not sufficient to constitute the offence. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned PL opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, has prayed for it's rejection. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. On perusal of the contents of the FIR, the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused appear to be sound. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above and the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Ummed Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. And another 2013 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 601, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant by arresting officer or by the court, the applicant-accused shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant/accused shall appear before the investigating officer within 15 days from the date of this order failing which, effect of the order shall stand vacated automatically;
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. C.c. As per rules.
(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE