Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hameer Singh Meena @ Gittu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA.5780/2018
( Hameer Singh Meena @ Gittu Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. )
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 20.08.2018
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, G.A. Advocate for the respondent /
State.
None for 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 (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 17.07.2018 passed by Special Judge, Bhopal SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in SC ATR / 54 / 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.210/2018 registered at P.S. Khajuri Sadak, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376, 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v) & 3(1)(w)(1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
As per the prosecution case, on 02.06.2018 at around 9:00 pm applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix and threatened to kill her. Thereafter again on 04.06.2018 applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix. On that, police registered Crime No.210/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections342, 376, 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v) & 3(1)(w)(1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 . During investigation on 07.07.2018 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 17.07.2018. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is submitted that prosecutrix was major. The prosecution THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA.5780/2018 ( Hameer Singh Meena @ Gittu Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. ) 2 story is also not corroborated from the medical examination report of the prosecutrix. Charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody since 07.07.2018 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that sufficient evidence is available to connect the appellant with the offence in question, so he should not be released on bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, appellant is in custody since 07.07.2018 and conclusion of trial will take time, 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 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.
C.C. on payment of usual charges.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge sarathe Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2018.08.21 10:05:36 +05'30'