Bhura @ Digvijay Singh vs State Of M.P

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the complainant has been informed about the pendency of this appeal as required under Section 15-A

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Case diary is available.

This second Criminal Appeal for grant of bail has been filed under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities), Act, 1989 against the order dated 23.2.2021 passed by Special Judge, Bhind by which the application filed by the appellant for grant of bail

has been rejected. The first criminal appeal was dismissed by order dated 16.6.2021 passed in CRA No.3537/2021.

The appellant has been arrested on 14.2.2021 in connection with Crime No.37/2021 registered at Police Station Mow, District Bhind for offence

punishable under Section 392 of IPC, under Section 11, 13 of MPDVPK Act and under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the FIR was lodged against an unknown person whereas the appellant is the resident of the same

locality where the complainant is residing, therefore, there was every occasion for the complainant to specifically name the appellant in the FIR. The

appellant has been falsely implicated and the appellant has also filed the photograph of the locality to show that the house of the appellant and the

complainant are situated at nearby the places.

Considered the submission made by the counsel for the appellant.

So far as the question as to whether the appellant was known to the complainant or not is concerned, no authoritative finding can be given at this

stage. Merely because the appellant and the complainant were residing in the similar vicinity, it is not expected that every one must known each and

every person residing in the same vicinity. It is a matter of evidence which is to be considered and decided by the Trial Court after recording

evidence.

The allegations against the appellant and other co-accused persons are that by throwing red chilly in the eyes of the complainant, an amount of

Rs.15,500/- + Rs.650/- along with other documents were taken away. Further the appellant has been identified by the complainant in the test

identification parade and certain incriminating articles belonging to the complainant have also been seized from the possession of the appellant. The

first criminal appeal filed by the appellant has already been dismissed on merits by order dated 16.6.2021 passed in CRA No.3537/2021.

As no change in circumstance could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.