High CourtsSingle Bench

Balram Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 30 August 2022 · Citation: (2022) 08 MP CK 0056

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vishal Dhagat, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Vka), 3(i)(w)(ii), 14A(1) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 343, 366, 376, 376(2)(N), 452, 506 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No.7021 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 459 words

Vishal Dhagat, J

This is first criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of bail against order dated 17.06.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST), Seoni (MP) passed in Bail Application No.243/2022.

Appellant has been arrested on 20.05.2022 in connection with Crime No.222/2022 registered at Police Station-Lakhnadon, District-Seoni (MP), for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(N), 506, 452, 343 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(2)(V-ka), 3(i)(w)(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for appellant that appellant is young man aged about 23 years and prosecutrix is aged about 21 years. Prosecutix on her own went to meet appellant and thereafter she went on motorcycle with the appellant and lived together for about 8 days. Thereafter, prosecutrix was recovered and complaint under Section 376 of IPC was filed. It is further submitted that father of prosecutrix has to pay huge amount of money to father of appellant, therefore, a false case has been registered against the appellant. In these circumstances, he prayed that appellant may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the bail application. He read over the statement of prosecutrix and submitted that she had forcefully been violated under threat by the appellant, therefore, criminal appeal for grant of bail may be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Prosecutrix had stated in her statement that she went alone to meet the appellant on 14.05.2022 and thereafter, she accompanied him on motorcycle and lived with appellant for 8 days.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, this criminal appeal filed by appellant is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) by the appellant along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant be released on bail.

The appellant shall abide by the following conditions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. as under:-

(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;

(b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected and;

(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

C.C. as per rules.