High CourtsSingle Bench

Deepak Raghuvanshi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 14 October 2019 · Citation: (2019) 10 MP CK 0038

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A. Dharmadhikari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A(2) · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 3(2)(V), 34, 302
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 8399 Of 2019
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

17 paragraphs · 692 words

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This third criminal appeal u/S 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assails the order dated 29/10/2018 passed by Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Ashok Nagar, whereby application preferred by the appellant u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The first appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20/12/2018 passed in CRA No. 9450/2018 and second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23/01/2019 passed in CRA No.385/2019.

The appellant has been arrested by Police Station-AJK, District- Ashok Nagar in connection with Crime No.57/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(V) of the Act.

Prosecution story, in short, is that on 01/10/2017, the complainant- Lalu Ahirwar lodged the FIR to the effect that his brother Mukundi (deceased) had gone to take the tractor of Kallu Raghuvanshi to cultivate his field. When Mukundi (deceased) did not return back, his family members called him but phone was not picked up by him. On the very next date, the complainant along with other persons searched the deceased and found his dead body lying in the field of the appellant and other co-accused persons. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and he is not concerned with the case directly or indirectly. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that according to postmortem report, the death of Mukundi (deceased) has been shown due to cardio respiratory failure. There is no eye-witness of the incident. Only due to previous enmity, name of the appellant has been implicated in the offence. FIR has been lodged against the unknown persons and no recovery has been made from the appellant. Charge-sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required. The appellant is in custody since 10/10/2018 and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for bail is made.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 29/10/2018 is set-aside and this present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Act stands allowed, but with certain stringent condition in view of nature of offence, and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) with two local solvent sureties each of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant:-

1.

The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2.

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

3.

The appellant will not indulge himself 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;

4.

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5.

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

6.

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

7.

The appellant shall appear and mark his attendance before the concerned trial court / committal court once in every month till conclusion of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to this Court.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

C.c. as per rules.