Ashok Dhangi and Another vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—In this case a preliminary objection was raised by the State regarding maintainability of this application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. in view of specific bar u/s 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the "SCST Act") for grant of anticipatory bail. In other words, it is the stand of the State Government that application for grant of anticipatory bail for offences under the SCST Act is not maintainable. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard on the question of maintainability as well as on merits. In the light of detailed discussion in Misc.Cri.Case No. 8898/2012 (Ummed Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and another) on the question of maintainability of application for anticipatory bail, this Court, in view of the recent judgment of Supreme Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , held that if the litmus test laid down by Supreme Court is satisfied, anticipatory bail can be granted u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also clear that the court must satisfy itself that prima facie case u/s 3(1)(xi) is not made out and, therefore, anticipatory bail can be entertained.

Thus, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State cannot be accepted. In the opinion of this Court, the blanket objection regarding maintainability of anticipatory bail is meritless and it is accordingly overruled.

On merits:

In this case the applicants apprehend their arrest in crime No. 42/2012 registered under sections 294, 323/ 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of SCST Act by Police Station AJK, District Datia.

In the present case, the averment of the FIR shows that prima facie alleged incident had not taken place in public view. Accordingly, necessary ingredients for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SCST Act are not prima facie satisfied. However, it is made clear that this observation is only for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail and it will not affect the trial of the case in any manner.

Considering the aforesaid and applying the test laid down in various judgments of this Court referred to in the detailed order passed in Misc.Cri.Case No. 8898/2012 (Ummed Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and another) and in view of the recent judgment in Vilas Pandurang Pawar (supra), I deem it proper to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants be released on bail on their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each and furnishing two solvent sureties of Rs. 25000/- each by each applicant to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to following conditions:-

The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bonds executed by them;

The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

The applicants will not indulge themselves 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 applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused.

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

The applicants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Misc.Cri.Case stands disposed of.

A copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned.

Certified copy as per rules.