Annu @ Arun vs Archi Kendra Sahar Basoda And Others

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Act against the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Vidisha, rejecting the bail application.

The appellant has been arrested on 30.03.2022 in connection with Crime No.338/2021 registered by Police Station Sahar Basoda, Distt. Vidisha for offence punishable under Sections 341, 327, 294, 323, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)( द), 3(1)( ध) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, 'Act').

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that according to the prosecution case, on 17.06.2021 at about 10:00 am, when the complainant was going on his motor cycle towards railway station, he was waylaid by the appellant and he took out the key of his motor cycle and demanded money. It was alleged that when the complainant refused to pay any money, then appellant picked up an iron rod which was lying in a nearby house and assaulted on his left ear and also threatened that in case if he refuses to pay money in future, then he will be killed. It is submitted that complainant has obtained the caste certificate on 14.01.2022 which is apparent from the caste certificate issued by the concerning authority i.e. SDO, Revenue, Tehsil Basoda, District Vidisha, whereas the incident is alleged to have taken place on 17.06.2021. The appellant is in jail since 30.03.2022 i.e. more than two months. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution case.

Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the State and the complainant.

It is submitted by the complainant that after he was stopped by appellant, he demanded money. The complainant informed certain witnesses from his mobile phone and thereafter his mobile phone was thrown by appellant on the ground. An amount of Rs.1000/- which was kept in cover of mobile was taken away. Extensive damage was caused to the motor cycle belonging to his friend as well as to his mobile phone, therefore appellant may be directed to compensate him for the loss caused.

Accordingly, Counsel for State was directed to point out from the case diary as to whether it contains the damage panchnama of the mobile phone as well as motor cycle or not?

After going through the police case diary, it is fairly conceded by Counsel for State that the case diary does not contain the damage panchnama of his mobile phone and motor cycle. It is also stated that even in the FIR or in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, complainant had not alleged any damage to his mobile phone or his motor cycle. However, it is submitted by Counsel for State that appellant has a criminal history and as many as 10 more criminal cases were registered against him. Out of which, four cases have been registered under Sections 34 of Excise Act, whereas one case has been registered under Section 34 (2) of Excise Act. One case has been registered under Section 49-A of M.P. Excise Act. One case has been registered under Section 13 of Jua Act. One case has been registered under Section 341, 327, 323, 506, 34 of IPC. Another case has been registered under Section 323, 294, 324, 506, 34 of IPC and one more offence has been registered under Section 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(n), 3(1)(/k), 3(2) (va) of the Act.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as the complainant. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the criminal antecedents, the appellant can be granted bail only on the stringent condition.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing cash surety of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) or in the alternative on depositing his original title-deed(s) [not Rin Pustika] of the immovable property worth of more than the said amount, as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharo @ Shahrukh vs. The State of M.P. by order dated 6.9.2021 passed in SLP (Cri.) No.6321/2021 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.

This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

It is made clear that single default in appearance before the Trial Court, or in case of registration of new offence, this bail order shall automatically come to an end and the cash surety so furnished by the appellant shall automatically stand forfeited without any reference to the Court. If the title deeds are deposited, then the same shall not be returned unless the cash surety amount is deposited.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.