Madhya Pradesh High Court
Malkhan Singh Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2017
CRA.6000/2017.
(Malkhan Singh Dangi Vs. State of M.P).
Gwalior, Dated : 18/12/17
Shri D.S.Tomar, learned counsel, for the
appellant.
Shri Shiraz Quraishi, learned Public Prosecutor, for
the respondent no.1/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor has made an open court statement that the concerned Police Station has duly served a notice in writing upon respondent no.2- complainant regarding the filing and hearing of the appeal. Today, at the time of hearing of this appeal, neither respondent no.2-complainant nor her counsel is found present before this court.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage and the following order is passed :-
ORDER.
1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act").
2. The short facts of the case for deciding this appeal are that on 3.9.2017 complainant/respondent no.2 Dipanjali Jatav made an oral complaint at Police Station Vidisha Dehat stating that she is the member of the schedule caste community. She is a resident of village Sothar and a student of 10 th class. Appellant-accused Malkhan Singh used to stalk and follow her whenever CRA.6000/2017.
(Malkhan Singh Dangi Vs. State of M.P).
she is out of her residence since February, 2017. On 25.8.2017, the appellant came to her house and told her giving filthy abuses as also in her caste name, saying that if she does not not marry him, then he would kidnap her. On 3.9.2017 at about 7 a.m, the appellant caught hold of her hands and told her that she would have to marry him. Upon her loud outcry, her father came to her rescue. He also gave him filthy abuses and threatened to kill him in case she is not ready to marry him. Upon the report of the complainant, the police registered a case against the appellant at Crime No.451 of 2017 under Sections 354(A) (D), 506 and 294 I.P.C, 7 r.w 8 of the POCSO Act and 3 (1) (r) (s) (w) and 3 (2) (va) of the Act.
3. The appellant filed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C before the Special Judge (Atrocities) Vidisha. The bail application is registered as 726 of 2017. The learned Special Judge has dismissed the appellant's bail application vide order dated 1.12.2017 holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant does not deserve to be admitted on bail. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been in custody in the case since 25.11.2017. He submits that the police filed the charge- sheet against him on 3.12.2017. He submits that the appellant is a permanent resident of the place of CRA.6000/2017.
(Malkhan Singh Dangi Vs. State of M.P).
occurrence and that he has no criminal antecedents. He submits that the trial will take long time to conclude. He submits that the appellant is aged about 22 years and that if he remains in jail for a longer period, then his future life will be adversely affected in coming into contact with the hardened jail inmates. Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal by setting- aside the impugned order of rejection for grant of bail to the appellant.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of rejection for grant of bail is set aside. The learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Vidisha is directed to release appellant Malkhan Singh Dangi on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand) with one solvent surety of the same amount to his satisfaction for securing his presence in the course of trial of the case. The appellant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In case of bail jump, the trial court will have power to cancel his bail.
CRA.6000/2017.
(Malkhan Singh Dangi Vs. State of M.P).
7. Accordingly, this appeal is finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge (Rks) R. K. SHARMA 2017.12.19 13:41:01 +05'30'