Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Rawde vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2566/2018
Jabalpur
Dated: 04-05-2018
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appel-
lants.
Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
None appears for respondent No.2/victim. Heard on I.A. No.7203/2018, which is an application for amendment.
For the reasons stated in I.A. No.7203/2018, the same is allowed.
Necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.
Also heard on the present appeal which has been filed by the appellants under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Balaghat (M.P.) in bail application No.103/2018 whereby the application filed by the appellants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
The appellants are apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.97/2018, registered at Police Station AJJAK (SC/ST), District Balaghat for the offence under Sections 294 and 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(d)(dha) & 3(2) 5k of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The allegation against the appellants is that they assaulted and abused and threatened to the life of the complainant who belongs to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community.
It is submitted that the appellants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no material to establish the offence. Hence, this appeal be allowed by setting- aside the impugned order and appellants be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned GA opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants has prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail and also stated that in view of the averments in the FIR and other evidence collected during investigation, all the ingredients are established and disclosing commission of offence punishable under Section SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, the appeal be disallowed.
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of this court, prima facie it is established that the appellants have committed the aforesaid crime. Hence, in view of provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, they are not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, the prayer is rejected.
Learned counsel has also submitted that the concerning Police officer be directed to observe and record the reason necessary for the arrest of the appellants as per the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another passed in Criminal appeal no.416/2018 decided on 20.3.2018 and by this Court in Ajeet Jain vs. State of M.P. passed in Criminal appeal no. 1757/2018 decided on 4.4.2018, so that the appellants may not be harassed by unnecessary arrest. The prayer seems to be reasonable. As prima facie looking to the nature of the offence, the appellants' arrest is not warranted. Hence, in case of their arrest by the competent authority, it is expected from the Police officers concerned to observe the guidelines and directions given by the Apex court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another passed in Criminal appeal no.416/2018 decided on 20.3.2018 and by this Court in Ajeet Jain vs. State of M.P. passed in Criminal appeal no.1757/2018 decided on 4.4.2018.
C.C. as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge sjk Digitally signed by SHARANJEET KAUR JASSAL Date: 2018.05.08 10:38:05 +05'30'