Baliram @ Balram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors

They are heard. Perused the case diary.

The appellant has preferred this appeal (second) under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended by Act of 2015) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, feeling aggrieved by order dated 12.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (under SC / ST Act), Barwani (MP) in Special ST / Bail Application No.20/2019, whereby the prayer for grant of regular bail has been declined.

Appellant has been arrested on 10.05.2019 in connection with crime No.158/2019 registered at Police Station Barwani, District Barwani (MP) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 370, 376, 323, 344 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As per prosecution case, on the basis of allegations made by the prosecutrix, the alleged offence under Sections 420, 370, 376, 323, 344 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been registered against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime. Earlier bail application of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.6257/2019 granting liberty to renew his prayer after recording court statement of the prosecutrix. Now the prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court. From her statement, it is clear that she was married lady and she has contracted Court marriage with Kamal and she remained present in Court but during which period, she has not raised any alarm nor made any complaint to anybody, that she has been abducted by the applicant and other co-accused persons and she was forced to marry with Kamal. She remained in the company of Kamal for a period of 1 ½ months during which period, her husband not lodged any missing person report, which indicates that the prosecutrix had gone out of her own will. She also accepted that in her presence Kamal has not paid any amount to present applicant for purchasing her.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that now-a-days some married ladies are engaged in such type of crime. They contract marriage with another person and after taking away valuable articles from them, such married ladies flee away. The present case is also an example of the aforesaid crime. The appellant is in custody since 10.05.2019. There is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the present appellant on bail; hence the appeal filed by the present appellant be dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that Police has also recorded statement of Kamal in which he made allegation, that the present appellant, after receiving money, sold the prosecutrix to him. Therefore, it will be appropriate to consider the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail, after Court statement of Kamal.

In this view of the matter, Criminal Appeal No.10651/2019 is hereby dismissed.