Ankit Dixit vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 25/4/2019 passed by

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.147/2019; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the

appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No. 1696/2014 registered at P.S. Betul, Distt. Betul for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and also Section 3 (2) (v) of

SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, who apprehend his arrest in the crime.

As per prosecution case, on 22/11/2014 complainant Bheem, brother of deceased Jitesh lodged a report averring that he resides at Sweeper Mohalla

Betul, Distt. Betul and works in the Municipal Committee Betul. He had gone along with his brother Jitesh to temple for worshiping at around 12.30

p.m. and when they were on temple, Rinku Rathore, Ankit Dixit (Present appellant), Dabbu Mishra, Guni and Kaifi Musalman came on three

motorbikes and they had fired at his brother Jitesh and on him. All these persons were having guns in their hands. In the firing, his brother Jitesh

sustained a gunshot injury on his chest and after firing, Rinku Rathore, Ankit Dixit (Present appellant), Dabbu Mishra, Guni and Kaifi Musalman ran

away on their bikes. At the time incident, Ganesh and Gautam were also present on the spot and they saw the incident. On that, police registered

Crime no.1696/2014 at P.S. Betul, Distt. Betul for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25

and 27 of the Arms Act and also Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the appellant and other co-accused persons.

Ashok Dixit, father of the present appellant lodged a complaint to higher police official that his son was falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.

On that, S.P. AJK, Bhopal inquired that complaint and found that at the time of incident, the appellant was at Indore. He was not on the spot, so police

did not file charge sheet against the appellant and filed charge sheet against the other co-accused persons. During trial, learned trial Court, recorded

the statements of eye witnesses of the incident namely Bheem, Kailash and Suraj and vide order dated 25/03/2017, and took cognizance against the

appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC. On that, appellant filed an application for anticipatory bail before trial Court which was rejected by the trial

Court vide order dated 25/4/2019 being aggrieved from the order appellant filed this criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that S.P. AJK, Bhopal on the complaint of Ashok Dixit, father of the appellant inquired the matter and

recorded the statement of Hargovind, Sandeep, Pankaj Yadav, DSP R.C.Rajput and also collected the CCTV footage and on that basis, he found that

at the time of incident, the appellant was at Indore and did not file charge sheet against him and filed closure report against him before the court and

did not arrest the appellant at that time. In the incident, the deceased sustained two gunshot injuries and according to complainant Bheem, the said

injuries were caused by co-accused Rinku Thakur. So the story of the complainant that all four persons fired at the deceased, is become false.

Offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the STSC Act is not made out against the appellant because there is no evidence on record to show that the

deceased was murdered on the ground that he belonged to SC ST community. Appellant has no criminal past. Appellant is ready to cooperate in the

trial. So he should be released on anticipatory bail. In this regard, he also placed reliance on Apex Court judgment passed in Masumsha Hasanasha

Musalman V. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 1876 in which the apex Court held â€Å"for applicability of S.3(2)(v) it is necessary that

offence was committed against complainant on the basis (on the ground) that such person is a member of SC/ST and not otherwise.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as objector opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of Bheem it is apparent that

the appellant was involved in the crime and at the time of incident appellant had also come on the spot along with the other co-accused persons

armed with a gun and fired at the deceased. Police also seized the 2 live and 4 empty cartridges from the spot. Learned trial Court recorded the

statements of eye witnesses of the incident namely Bheem, Kailash and Suraj and thereafter, vide order dated 25/03/2017 took cognizance against

the appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC. That order was challenged by the appellant by way of Cr. Appeal No.3740/2017 which was rejected

by the coordinate bench of this Court against which the appellant filed the SLP before the Apex Court which was also dismissed by the Apex Court.

Appellant is still absconding, so he should not be released on anticipatory bail.

Although, in the report lodged by complainant Bheem soon after the incident, the name of the appellant is mentioned. But it also appears from the

record that Bheem lodged the report against 5 persons namely Rinku Rathore, Ankit Dixit (Present appellant), Dabbu Mishra, Guni and Kaifi

Musalman. While he in his court statement deposed that at the time of incident, Dabbu Mishra, Guni and Kaifi Musalman were not present on the

spot. During investigation, it was found that at the time of incident, appellant was at Indore.Although offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST(Prevention

of Atrocities) Act 1989 was also registered against the present appellant. But in the crime registered for the offence under Atrocity Act, anticipatory

bail can be granted, when it is prima facie found that such an offence is not made out. Alleged incident said to have occurred on 22/11/2014 prior to

the amendment in SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was murdered on the

ground that he belonged to S.C./S.T. community. Apex Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC

1876 heldâ€Å"for applicability of S.3(2)(v) SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 it is necessary that offence was committed against the

complainant on the basis (on the ground) that such person is a member of SC/ST and not otherwise.†So looking to the facts and circumstances

of the case the application is allowed.and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant in Crime No. 1696/2014 registered at P.S. Betul, Distt.

Betul (M.P.), the present appellant Ankit Dixit be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

Only) each with a solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :

The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

The appellant will co-operate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

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;

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

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 concerned SHO for compliance.

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.