Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samandar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2017
CRA-3267-2016
(SAMANDAR SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
09-01-2017
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent
No.1-State.
None for respondent No.2/complainant Ramesh â though he was present on previous hearing dated 06.01.2017.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present, this appeal is finally heard at the motion stage itself after admitting it.
2. The appellants have filed this criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short âthe Actâ) being aggrieved by the rejection of their bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., being numbered as 69/2016, vide order dated 4.8.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge Sehore under the Act.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 18.07.2016, complainant Ramesh Chand, who is respondent No.2 herein, lodged a written FIR at Police Station Icchawar of Sehore district stating that he is a resident of village Sakhliyahansraj and that he is a member of scheduled caste community. In front of his house, a stray dog used to sit. He and his family members occasionally gave it left-over eatables. On 17.07.2016 at about 3:45 p.m., the dog bit the son of Gopal and the wife of Mangilal, who are the natives of his village. Thereupon, appellant Raju barged into his house and hurled filthy abuses at him. He asked him not give him abuses. In the meantime, appellants namely Samandra Singh, Parvesh Kumar, Ravi, Arjun and Vinod entered his house with sticks. They hurled abuses at him in the names of his mother, sisters and caste. Appellant Raju dragged him out of his house, where they committed marpeet with sticks. As a result, he sustained injuries on his left elbow and back. When his daughter Kavita and son Dheeraj came to rescue him, they were also beaten by the appellants. Upon the report of the complainant, the police registered a case at Crime No.232/16 against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 452 and 506 of the IPC, 3(1)(r) and (s) and 3(2)(v) of the Act.
4. The appellants filed an application before the learned Special Judge under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending their arrest by police in the case. Vide the impugned order, he dismissed the bail application on the grounds that the police has registered the case against the appellants for the offences punishable under the Act, in addition to penal Sections of other statutes and Section 18 of the Act bars the Court for granting anticipatory bail. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the FIR, the alleged offences occurred inside the residence of the complainant. Therefore, prima facie offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) and 3(2)(v) of the Act are not made out. He submits that on 06.01.2017, the complainant appeared in person before this Court and made an oral statement that the genesis of the alleged crime is the dog bite and that the appellants did not commit the crime on the ground that he and his family members belong to the scheduled caste. He submits that the complainant's said statement has been reduced by this Court into writing. He submits that the complainant and his son and daughter sustained minor injuries in the nature of abrasions and contusions. He submits that the appellants are permanent residents of village Sakhliyahansraj, the place of occurrence, and that they have no criminal antecedents. He submits that the appellants shall co-operate with the police in the investigation of the case. He submits that looking to the allegations levelled against the appellants, their custodial interrogations are not required. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
6. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.
7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel, the place of occurrence of the crime, the injuries sustained by the complainant, his son and daughter and the statement made by the complainant before this Court on 06.01.2017, but without making any comments on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants. Hence, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order. Appellants Samandar Singh, Parvesh Kumar, Ravi Nagar, Arjun Nagar, Raju Nagar and Vinod Nagar are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case on or before 31.01.2017 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.30,000/- (only thirty thousands rupees) 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 this order of grant of anticipatory bail shall automatically stand cancelled in respect of him.
8. It is also made clear that the trial Court shall not be influenced directly or indirectly by any of the observations made in this order while framing charge(s) against the appellants.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE haider