Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veeru @ Virendra Bhandarkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2020
Author: Jagdish Prasad Gupta
Bench: Jagdish Prasad Gupta
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No.4414/2020
JABALPUR : 15/09/2020
Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Mayank
Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, P.L. for the respondent/State.
None for the respondent no.2.
Heard through video conferencing. Case diary perused. This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 passed by the Special Sessions Judge (S.C. and S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Balaghat, in Bail Application No.178/2020 whereby the court below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The appellant is apprehending his arrest for the offence under Sections 295, 153-A(2) of the IPC, and sections 3(2)(t) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered at Police Station Khairlanji, District Balaghat (M.P.) in Crime No.153/2017.
Initially this case was registered under section 295 and 153- A(2) of the I.P.C. and the applicant was released on bail. Later, offence under section 3(1)(t) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been added and the applicant is apprehending his arrest.
It is submitted that according to the prosecution story, the allegation against the appellant is that he destroyed/removed the statue of God Buddha and its platform and thereby have hurt the feelings of complainant who belong to Scheduled Caste community; but, with regard to the aforesaid dispute, the victim has filed Civil Suit before the Civil Judge Class I, Waraseoni, which has been dismissed on 4.3.2015 and later an application for stay of the operation of the decree has been rejected by the 2 appellate court and the alleged statue and platform was not found in the premises of the complainant. It is further submitted that if the allegations against the applicant is assumed to be true, then also prima facie offence under section 3(1)(t) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not established as there is nothing on record to establish the fact that the statue of Buddha and platform comes in the category of object generally known to be held sacred or in high esteem by the members of Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, while generally it is known that the statue of God Buddha is a sacred idol and is held in high esteem by the persons of all castes. Therefore, prima facie it is doubtful that the appellant has committed any offence punishable under section 3(1)(t) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, no purpose will be served by arresting the applicant. Moreover, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. Hence, prayer is made to release the appellant on anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned P.L. opposed the prayer for bail stating that the appellant has no right to get anticipatory bail as there is bar under section 18 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of anticipatory bail, hence prayed for rejection of the appeal.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the case diary, this Court is of the view that prima facie offence under section 3(1)(t) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act does not made out. Hence, there is no bar of section 18 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest or surrender of appellant Veeru @ Virendra Bhandarkar before the Arresting Authority / Investigating Officer in relation to aforementioned Crime No., within a period of 15 days from today, 3 he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority / Investigating Officer.
The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required and will co- operate in the investigation. He will further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
It is made clear that the observation made in this order shall not affect the further proceedings of the court below.
CC as per rules.
(J.P. Gupta) Judge HS HEMA Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA NT PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f8fa0b4f4478c62388 23256688e73f3f8f39554afa15 SARAF 525b099da0b0d40060cc, cn=HEMANT SARAF Date: 2020.09.15 16:26:39 +05'30'