Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raspati Ojha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 January, 2016
MCRC-243-2016
(RASPATI OJHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
11-01-2016
Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant/accused.
Shri A.S. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Case diary 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 in connection with Crime No.106/2014, Police Station Ater, District Bhind for the offence registered under Sections 323, 341, 506B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant/accused being a government servant as teacher has been falsely implicated in this case as the alleged incident took place on 6.7.2014 whereas the report was lodged near about after two months i.e. on 5.9.2014. The learned counsel further contends that earlier the report was lodged under Sections 323, 341, 506-B of IPC and during investigation the applicant/accused was arrested and was released on bail. After that an offence under Section 3(1) (10) of the Act has been added by the police malafide in order to arrest him in this case whereas there is no evidence on record against the applicant/accused to connect him with the said offence. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the case diary.
On perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the alleged offence was committed on 6.7.2014 whereas the report was lodged after two months i.e. on 5.9.2014. Earlier the case was registered under Sections 323, 341 and 506-B of IPC only and the applicant/accused was arrested and was released by the police. During investigation, an offence under Section 3(1) (10) of the Act has been added in this case. No recovery is to be made from the applicant/accused in this matter.
Considering the allegations made in the case diary and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ummed Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and anr., 2013 (3) MPHT 229, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in 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