Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chamariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-2318-2018
(CHAMARIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-04-2018
Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveriya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V.S. Mishra, Dy.Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent No.2/complainant despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST (Prevention of sh Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1.
Case diary perused and arguments heard.
e ad This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated Pr 14/3/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) a Act, in B.A. No.21/2018; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the hy bail application filed by appellant Chamhariya, under Section 439 of ad Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.21/2018 registered at P.S. Kirnapur, District Balaghat, (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections M 354, 456 of the IPC and also under Sections 3(2)5a and 3(1)r of SC/ST of (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
[2] As per prosecution case, on 6/2/2018 at about 11 p.m., rt appellant entered into the prosecutrix's house situate at village ou Pangaon and molest her. On that, police registered Crime no.21/2018 C at P.S. Kirnapur, District Balaghat, (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 456 of the IPC and also under Sections 3(2)5a and h ig 3(1)r of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated H the matter. During investigation on 14/2/2018 police arrested the appellant. On that, appellant filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 14/3/2018. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.
[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this matter. The appellant is in custody since 14/3/2018 and conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released on bail.
[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the appellant.
[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and and as to the fact that appellant is in custody since 14/3/2018 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed.
[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
sh [7] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the e following conditions by the appellant :
ad
1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
Pr
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the a case may be;
hy
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending ad inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact M of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
of
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
rt
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during ou the trial; and C
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous h permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. ig A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for H compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIADate: 2018.04.11 18:11:08 +05'30'