Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Narayan Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 CRA-987-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 987 of 2022
Between:-
HARI NARAYAN DHAKAD S/O SHRI
RAMCHARAN DHAKAD , AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASST. MANAGER VILL.
BATAVADA P.S MRAGWAS GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.K. TIWARI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
INCHARGE POLICE STATION MRAGWAS
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRILAL AHIRWAR S/O JAMNALAL
AHIRWAR , AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, VILLAGE
BATAVDA MRAGWAS DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH KUSHWAH, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE STATE )
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present first criminal appeal filed u/S.14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, assails the order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Guna (M.P.); whereby, the application preferred by appellant herein u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC and u/S.3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered as Crime No.190/2021 by Police Station Mragwas, District Guna (M.P.).
2 CRA-987-2022 Learned counsel for the appellant- Harinarayan Dhakad submitted that the appellant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. His name is not reflected in the FIR, rather he has been implicated only on the basis of statements given thereafter. It is further submitted that as the name of the appellant is not reflected in the FIR and his implication is based on later on recorded statement, therefore no case is made out against the present appellant under Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC. Trial will take its own time. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and has submitted that the case is registered against the appellant under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC and u/S.3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and as there is history of six criminal cases against the present appellant, therefore, provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are not attracted in the present case and no benefit under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. could be granted to the appellant. Hence, prays for rejection of this appeal filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on record.
In the FIR, name of appellant is not reflected. He has been implicated in this case after when the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Therefore, the offence punishable u/S.3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act may not prima facie be made out as it does not prima facie appear that the same was committed solely to harm the victims who are the members of SC/ST community and therefore the bar contained u/S.18 of SC/ST Act for grant of anticipatory bail may not come in way of the appellant.
In section 438(1)(ii) of Cr.P.C., it is specifically provisioned that:-
3 CRA-987-2022 "(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence".
The aforesaid fact has to be considered while considering application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, but in the present case, name of the appellant is not reflected in the FIR. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that prima facie no case is made out u/S.3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Guna (M.P.) is quashed by directing that the appellant be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest on furnishing a personal bond in the sum o f Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
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;
2. The appellant will co-operate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3 . The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
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 trial Court/ Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
This criminal appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for 4 CRA-987-2022 information.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Shubhankar Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2022.02.11 16:37:22 +05'30'