Madhya Pradesh High Court
Heeralal Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 2017
1
Criminal Appeal No.3873/2017
(Heeralal Rai v. State of M.P.)
11.10.2017
Shri Sushil Mishra, counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
Complainant-Mangal Singh Gond is present in person. Heard with the aid of case diary.
This appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.276/2017 registered at Police Station Gosalpur, District Jabalpur for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 452, 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(5)(ka), 3 (1)(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, who apprehend his arrest in the crime.
As per prosecution case, on 05.09.2017, complainant Mangal Singh Gond lodged the report at Police Station Gosalpur, District Jabalpur averring that at 11:30 PM, appellant demanded money from him and assaulted him and abused him with insulting regarding caste, due to which, he sustained injury in his right eye, wrist and back. On that report, the police registered Crime No.276/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 452, 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(5)(ka), 3 (1)(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant filed an 2 Criminal Appeal No.3873/2017 (Heeralal Rai v. State of M.P.) application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected. Being aggrieved by that order, present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. It is submitted that the complainant himself gave affidavit before SDOP averring that the appellant did not commit any incident with him. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant committed the said act against the complainant knowingly that he belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Further, the act of the appellant does not come under the purview of the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. So the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. Hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
The complainant who is present in person submitted that he has no objection.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the application stating that in the incident appellant also abused the complainant with insulting words regarding caste, therefore, offence under Section 3 (1) (da) & 3 (2)(5 ka) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also made out.
Although offence under Sections 3 (1) (da) & 3 (2)(5 ka) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been registered against the appellant and according to Section 18 of the Act 3 Criminal Appeal No.3873/2017 (Heeralal Rai v. State of M.P.) provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to the persons committing an offence under the Act, but in Pankaj D. Suthar V/s. State Of Gujarat reported in (1992) 1 GLR 405 while considering the scope of Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the Gujarat High Court observed as under :-
"Section 18 of the Atrocities Act gives a vision, direction and mandate to the Court as to the cases where the anticipatory bail must be refused, but it does not and it certainly cannot whisk away the right of any Court to have a prima facie judicial scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint. Nor can it under its hunch permit provisions of law being abused to suit the mala fide motivated ends of some unscrupulous complainant."
Apex Court also in the case of Vilas Pandurang and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795 held as under :-
"The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record."
Which shows that in the crime registered for the offences under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out.
So looking to the affidavit filed by the complainant Mangal Singh Gond and facts and circumstances of the case, without 4 Criminal Appeal No.3873/2017 (Heeralal Rai v. State of M.P.) commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant in Crime No.276/2017 registered at Police Station Gosalpur, District Jabalpur, the present 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 of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, (Atrocities), Jabalpur.
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 co-operate 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 facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her 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 applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant 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 concerned court for compliance.
Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge (ra)