Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhukul @ Mukul Yadav @ Rohani Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2018
1 CRA-3761-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3761-2018
(BHUKUL @ MUKUL YADAV @ ROHANI PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 04-07-2018
Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Arvind Singh, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State.
None present from the respondent Nos.2 and 3/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 first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 10/5/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.24/2018; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Bhukul @ Mukul Yadav @ Rohani Prasad, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.39/2018 registered at P.S. Burhar, District Shahdol, (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 307 of I.P.C. r/w Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(5 ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
Earlier, the appellant filed the applications which were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 28/2/2018 & 4/5/2018 passed in MCrC Nos.5979/2018 and 16284/2018 respectively.
As per prosecution case on 17/01/2018 at 2:00 PM appellant and co-accused persons namely Laltesh Yadav, Lalan Kewat, Daddu Baiga, Minda Yadav, Bablu Kewat and Lallu Kewat went to the the Hotel of Jhurru Kewat situated at village Jarwahi armed with stick, sword and knife and abused the complainant Ajay Yadav and his friends Manoj Raidas & Ramchandra. Thereafter, co-accused Minda Yadav inflicted knife blow on the stomach of Ramchandra and co-accused Lalan Kewat also assaulted Manoj Choudhary by means of sword, who sustained injury in his right hand. It is alleged that the applicants Lalitesh Yadav and Daddu Baiga also assaulted them by stick. On that report, police registered Crime No.39/2018 registered at P.S. Burhar, District Shahdol, (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 307 of I.P.C. r/w Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(5 ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the matter. During investigation on 18/1/2018 police 2 CRA-3761-2018 arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed 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, Shahdol vide order dated 10/05/2018. Being aggrieved from that order appellant has preferred this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. Otherwise also according to the prosecution story co-accused Minda Yadav caused grievous injury to Ramchandra by knife. The appellant is in custody since 18/01/2018 and conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that sufficient material is available against the applicant to connect him with the offence.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that the appellant is in custody since 18/1/2018, 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.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand 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 investigation/trial, as the case may be;
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/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
3 CRA-3761-2018 A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIADate: 2018.07.05 13:43:54 +05'30'