Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balmukund Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2016
MCRC-6810-2016
(BALMUKUND RAJPUT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
02-05-2016
Mr.Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel, for the applicant. Mr.K.S.Patel, learned , Panel Lawyer, for the State. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicant Balmukund Rajput is apprehending his arrest for offences under sections 147,148,336,323,294,295,436,506 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(da) (tha) (na) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station Gulganj, District Chhattarpur, vide crime no. 41/2016.
According to the prosecution story on 25.3.2016 at about 11.00 p.m. 15 persons are said to have reached the place of incident and fired from gun and set the hutment of the applicant on fire and broke the statue of Baba Sahab Ambedkar. Accordingly, case under the above sections was registered against the applicant and other accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant had no personal interest in the alleged offence and that he is a government servant on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. He further states that the complainant in this case had placed the statue of Baba Sahab Ambedkar on government land with the intent of encroaching and capturing the said land. He further pointed out that there was proceedings before the Tahsildar Court after the Tahsildar Court had passed an order for removal of the statue of Baba Sahab Ambedkar at the place where the complainant had installed it. Before that there was a gram panchayat meeting in which it was resolved that the said statue would be removed from the place and the land would be secured. However, even after passing of the order of Tahsildar there was no action by the complainant to voluntarily removed the statue. Therefore, in order to execute the said order, which is a part and parcel of the duties of the applicant, the applicant along with other government servants had gone there on 25.3.2016 with the intention of removing the said statue.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that there are witnesses in this case who have spoken about the involvement of the applicant herein and that the applicant was amongst the 15 persons who had come there. As far as the burning of the hutment is concerned, it is not specifically attributed to the applicant herein but liability has been placed on him because he was one amongst the 15 persons who were there at that time.
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the bar of section 18 does not seem to be applicable as offence under the SC/ST Act do not seem to have been committed and instead it seems to be an incident of browbeat, the applicant who was a public servant performing his official duty.
Under the circumstances, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of his arrest, he be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a 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 the Police Officer competent to arrest him, subject to the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The observations with regard to the applicability of the SC/ST Act are confined only to the bail application. The post investigation they shall have no relevance as as far as the trial court is concerned and the trial court shall proceed without being influenced by the observations made by this Court.
The application is allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE