Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munnilal Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2019
1 CRA-5378-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-5378-2019
(MUNNILAL DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-07-2019
Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Satyendra Jyotishi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent/complainant despite compliance of provision o f 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 24/6/2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in B.A.No.381/2019; 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.705/2018 registered at P.S.Damoh Dehat, District Damoh (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC & Sec. 9(c) & (f), 10 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w), 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
On the report of Rajpyari Ahirwar, mother of the prosecutrix, police registered Crime No.705/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC, Sec. 9 & 10 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w), 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. During investigation on 5/2/2019 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 24/6/2019. 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. The statements of prosecutrixes (PW-1), (PW-4), (PW-5) and Rajpyari (PW-2) mother of the PW-1 have been recorded by the trial Court. They did not support the prosecution story. The appellant is a government servant. He is in custody since 5/2/2019 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant molested the minor girls, so he should not be released on bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that the statements of prosecutrixes (PW-1), (PW-4), (PW-5) and Rajpyari (PW-2) mother of the PW-1 have been recorded by the trial Court and the fact that the appellant is in custody since 5/2/2019 and conclusion of trial will Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 12/07/2019 10:52:15 2 CRA-5378-2019 take time, without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.
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 VS Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 12/07/2019 10:52:15