Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govindsingh Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-6243-2017
(GOVINDSINGH SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
10-01-2018
Jabalpur, Dated :
Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, 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 1989 against the order dated 13/12/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.794/2017; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Govind Singh Sahu, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.794/2017 registered at P.S. Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 376 (2)
(n) of I.P.C.and also under Sections 3(1)(w-i), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. [2] As per prosecution case, on 2/12/2017 prosecutrix lodged a report at P.S. Gotegaon averring that on 1/12/2017 at 2.30 p.m., the appellant abducted the prosecutrix and took her to forest near Paramhansi temple where he committed intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. On that report, police registered Crime no.794/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 376 (2)(n) of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (1)(w-i), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the matter. During investigation on 3/12/2017 police arrested the appellant. On that 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 13/12/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. [3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter and the prosecutrix was major and went with the appellant on her own will and the consenting party. Prosecutrix in her statement, recorded by JMFC under Section 164 of the CrPC, stated that the appellant did not comit rape with her. The appellant is in custody since 3/12/2017, so appellant be released on bail.
[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the appellant.
[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the JMFC under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and as to the fact that appellant is in custody since 3/12/2017 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. [6] 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.
[7] 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.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-