Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shashi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-5736-2017
(SMT. SHASHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-01-2018
Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deependra Mishra, Government Advocate for the
respondent no.1/State.
Shri Manish Kumar Jain, counsel for the respondent sh no.2/victim.
e Heard on this appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14-A ad of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Pr Atrocities) Act, 1989, filed on behalf of the appellant Shashi in crime no.14/2017 registered by P.S. Ajjak, District-Damoh a hy under Sections 332, 353 read with section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Castes ad and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
M It is directed against order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Damoh in bail application of no.750/2017.
rt As per the prosecution case, as reflected in the first ou information report, victim Shyam Lal Ahirwar is Senior Line- Man in Madhya Pradesh East, Zone Electricity Distribution C Company Limited, Damoh. At about 3:00 p.m. on 20.11.2017, h he had gone to the house of Umashankar Vishwakarma, ig husband of the appellant, to recover the arrears of H Electricity bills; whereon, Umashankar filthily abused him and did not pay the arrears. After that, the victim disconnected the Electricity Line. Enraged by aforesaid action, Umashankar caught hold of the hands of the victim and asked his wife/appellant to beat the victim with stick; whereon, present appellant Shashi brought a stick from inside the house and delivered 4-5 blows to the victim. She also filthily abused the victim and threatened to kill him. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a lady. There was an altercation between the present appellant and the victim with regard to arrears of the bills; however, the present appellant had not participated in aforesaid assault. As per the first information report, appellant had delivered 4-5 blows with stick to the victim; however, in the medical examination, no visible injury was found upon the person of the victim. He had only complained of pain; as such, the medical report does not corroborate the versions of the prosecution. It has further been submitted that the victim was not acquainted with the appellant. At any sh rate, he had gone on the spot in his official capacity;
e therefore, the presumption as provided under Section 8(c) of ad the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Pr Atrocities) Act, 1989 shall not be available to the prosecution; therefore, inspite of the provision of Section 18 a of the Act, the appellant would be entitled to anticipatory hy bail.
ad Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2/victim have M vehemently opposed the application mainly on the ground of that a prima-facie case under the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is rt ou made out against the appellant; therefore, in view of the embargo as engrafted in Section 18 of the Act, the remedy of anticipatory bail C shall not be available to the appellant The appellant had obstructed h the victim in discharge of his official duties. Therefore, it has been ig prayed that the application for anticipatory bail be dismissed. H However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and the legal position espoused by him, in the opinion of this Court, appellant deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Consequently, this appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that in the event of her arrest, the appellant Shashi shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for her appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified copy as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR)
JUDGE
e sh
ad
Pr
vai
Digitally signed by VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
a
Date: 2018.01.18 20:55:30
-08'00'
hy
ad
M
of
rt
ou
C
h
ig
H