Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsevak Singh Kaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-631-2018
(RAMSEVAK SINGH KAURAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 19-02-2018
Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned G.A. for the respondents/State
Shri Y. Shukla, learned counsel for the objector. Heard on this appeal under Section 14-A (1 & 2) of the Schedule sh Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed e on behalf of the appellant Ramsevak Singh Kaurav, in Crime No. ad 1125/2017 registered by Police Station Gadarwara District Pr Narsinghpur for offence under Section 354, 354-A, 506 of I.P.C. & Under Section 3(1)(w-i) of SC/ST Act.
a hy This appeal is directed against order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Narsingpur, whereby, the ad application for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant was M dismissed.
As per prosecution story, the respondent No. 2 was working in the of office of appellant and due to his derogatory remarks towards her rt caste, she had to leave the employment. The appellant is putting ou pressure on her to join back into the employment. The appellant has derogated her in the open market by the name of her caste. C The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a h Joint Secretary of National Human Rights Organization and Member ig of M.P. General Association, having a good image in the Society and H if he is arrested he will loose his image. He is innocent and he is falsely implicated by the respondent No. 2, who was working in his office. There is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has worked in his office from March , 2016 to March 17 and thereafter left the job. The alleged incident took place on 10.08.2017 and on FIR was lodged on 15.12.2017, therefore, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application by submitting that respondent No. 2 has already recorded her statement before the JMFC under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and then is no change in her version. Therefore, appellant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. That as per the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the incident has said to have taken place on 10.08.2017 and the fact that respondent No. 2 was under employment of the appellant from March 2016 to March, 2017 and thereafter, left the job due to her engagement. FIR was lodged on 15.12.2017. The derogatory remarks were not made in public place.
Consequently, this appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 438 sh of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the appellant Ramsevak Singh Kaurav e is allowed.
ad It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the appellant shall be Pr released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-and a solvent surety in the same amount to the a satisfaction of the arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial hy Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated ad in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
M C.C. as per rules.
of (VIVEK RUSIA) rt JUDGE ou C h ig L.R. H Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2018.02.22 10:37:34 +05'30'