Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vicky @ Raja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2018

                                          1                          CRA-4800-2018
           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                      CRA-4800-2018
                     (VICKY @ RAJA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Jabalpur, Dated : 24-07-2018
      Shri Rahul Diwarkar, Advocate for the applicant.
      Shri Manish Soni, Govt. Adv.for the respondent no.1/State.

None present from the respondent No.2/complainant despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1.

Case diary perused and arguments heard.

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 4/5/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhindwara, in B.A.No.1005/2018; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.111/2018 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, District Chhindwara (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 394 of IPC and also Section 3(2)(v)(a) of ST/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

As per prosecution case, on 23/2/2018 at about 8.30 p.m. when complainant went to Gulabra on the way, when she reached at street no.14 applicant and co- accused came on bike and looted one mobile from the complainant and ran away. On that, police registered Crime no.111/2018 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, District Chhindwara (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 394 of IPC and also Section 3(2)(v)(a) of ST/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and investigated the matter. During investigation on 27/2/2018 police arrested the applicant and after investigation charge-sheet was filed, on which Special S.T.No.62/2018 was registered. During trial of the case, 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 4/5/2018. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. The appellant has no criminal past. Charge-sheet has been filed and the appellant is in custody since 27/2/2018 and conclusion of trial will take considerable time. So applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant looted the mobile from the possession of the complainant and the mobile has been seized by the police from the possession of the appellant and the 2 CRA-4800-2018 complainant also identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade. So he should not be released on bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that the appellant has no criminal past, he is in custody since 27/2/2018 and the charge- sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

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 cooperate in the trial;

3.The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact 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;

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 the trial Court.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-