Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-1694-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1694-2021
(KULEEP SINGH CHOUHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
13
Jabalpur, Dated : 30-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Mayank Sharma,
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Notice has been served on victim.
None appeared for the Victim-A This is first Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2021 passed in Special Case No. 10/2021 by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) SC/ST Act, Sidhi, Distt.-Sidhi (M.P.), whereby bail application of appellant filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
The appellant is in custody since 16.11.2020, in connection with Crime No.847/2020, registered at Police Station-Majholi, Distt.-Sidhi (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366-A, 376(2) (n), 371, 372, 373 of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2021; under Section 3(1)(w) (i) (ii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
As per prosecution story, on 14.10.2020, prosecutrix aged about 17 years was missing from her house and she was searched but not found. Then, F.I.R. was lodged. Thereafter, on 10.11.2020, prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the present appellant/accused. It is alleged by the prosecution that other co-accused kidnapped prosecutrix and sold out to the present appellant/accused. The appellant/accused and other co-accused committed intercourse with her.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant/accused has falsely been implicated in this case. Actually, at the time of the incident, prosecutrix was above 18 years. Prosecutrix came to the appellant/accused with other co-accused person. Prosecutrix told that other co-accused person is her relative and she is agree to solemnize marriage with the present appellant/accused. Thereafter, marriage was solemnized with appellant/accused, father of other relative of appellant/accused participated in the marriage of appellant/accused and prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was residing Signature Not Verified SAN with the appellant/accused as wife but thereafter, police officials recovered Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2021.07.31 17:44:17 IST 2 CRA-1694-2021 the prosecutrix. Then she disclosed that other co-accused kidnapped her. So it appears that it is a false case against the present appellant/accused. The present appellant/accused is in custody since 16.11.2020. Charge-sheet has been filed. It is the time of COVID-19 Pandemic, due to which conclusion of trial will take time for its final disposal. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Appellant/accused has no previous criminal antecedents. Appellant is bread earner of his family, if he is kept in custody for unlimited period then future of his family will be spoiled. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the appellant.
Per-contra, learned Government Advocate opposes the bail application.
Considering the contentions of both the parties and this fact that the age of the prosecutrix is disputed, it appears that prosecutrix disclosed to the appellant/accused that other co-accused are sister and brother and other relative, then marriage was solemnized in the presence of the parents of appellant/accused, thereafter, appellant/accused committed intercourse with her. Appellant/accused is in custody since 16.11.2020 , charge-sheet has been filed, it is the time of pandemic COVID-19, due to which conclusion of trial will take time for final disposal, there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, appellant/accused is a bread earner of his family, so it would not be appropriate to keep the appellant in jail during whole trial, therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, appeal of the appellant under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set-aside.
It is directed that appellant-Kuldeep Singh Chouhanb shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties of the amount of Rs.50,000/- each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. It is directed that the appellant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
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 of the bond executed by him;Signature Not Verified SAN
2. The appellant will cooperate in the trial;Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2021.07.31 17:44:17 IST
3 CRA-1694-2021
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officers;
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.
Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-
1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the appellant by the jail doctor before his release.
2 . The appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
3. If it is found that the appellant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.
State is directed to inform this order to the Victim and also provide a copy of this order to the Victim.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Nitesh Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2021.07.31 17:44:17 IST