Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manju Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3485/2018
Jabalpur
Dated : 14.06.2018
Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
None appears for respondent No.2/victim.
Heard on the present appeal which has been filed by the appellant under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Sched- uled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the im- pugned order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Special Judge un- der the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Panna (M.P.) in Bail Application No.147/2018 whereby the ap- plication filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.35/2018, registered at Police Station Darampur AJAK, District Panna (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sec- tions 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atroci- ties) Act, 1989.
The allegation against the present appellant is that he as- saulted and abused and threatened to the life of the complainant who belongs to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community.
It is submitted that the appellant is innocent. He 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 the appellant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned Government Advocate opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant 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 the provisions of 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, this court is of the view that prima facie it is established that the appellant has commit- ted the aforesaid crime. Hence, in view of provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, the prayer is rejected.
However, learned counsel has also submitted that the concerning Police officer be directed to observe and record the reason necessary for the arrest of the appellant as per the direc- tion 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 appel- lant may not be harassed by unnecessary arrest. The prayer seems to be reasonable. As prima facie looking to the nature of the offence, the appellant's arrest is not warranted. Hence, in case of his arrest by the competent authority, it is expected from the Police Officer concerned to observe the guidelines and directions given by the Apex court in the case of Dr. Sub- hash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and an- other 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.
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge sjk Digitally signed by SHARANJEET KAUR JASSAL Date: 2018.06.15 15:46:03 +05'30'