Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj @ Sagar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 June, 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 CRA. No.4850/2019
(Suraj @ Sagar Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Another)
Gwalior Bench:
Dated:13/06/2019
Shri Suresh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as "SC & ST Act") assails the order dated 06/06/2019 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior whereby application preferred by the appellant u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
The appellant has been arrested on 31/05/2019 by Police Station Indarganj, District-Gwalior in connection with Crime No.193/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 354 (ka), 354(gh), 384 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(b) and 3(2)(5-Ka) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
The principal allegation is against the co-accused Shailendra and the statement of the prosectrix aged 28 years under Section 164 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 CRA. No.4850/2019 (Suraj @ Sagar Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Another) of Cr.P.C. is to the effect that appellant made personal photographs of the complainant and one Lalit Pal viral on social media. Prima facie, the offence u/Ss. 354 (ka), 354(gh), 384 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(b) and 3(2)(5-Ka) of SC & ST Act does not appears to be made out. However, considering the nature of offence and the period of custody undergone, further custodial interrogation may not be necessary and also appellant has no criminal antecedents.
In view of the above and considering the fact situation as well as the fact that early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty and the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the appellant fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant, but with certain stringent conditions.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 06/06/2019 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior is set aside and this appeal u/S 14(A) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act stands allowed and it is directed that appellant be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each of 25,000/-, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 CRA. No.4850/2019 (Suraj @ Sagar Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Another) of the bond executed by him;
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 he is 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.
7. The appellant shall appear and mark his presence before the concerned trial Court once in a week till conclusion of trial.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu)
vc V. Judge
VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
2019.06.13
18:05:04 -07'00'