Ganeshram Rajput vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor has apprised this Court that respondent no.2/complainant has been informed with regard to pendency of this appeal as required under section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act").

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This 2nd appeal u/S 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assails the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by Special Judge, (Atrocities) Distt. Vidisha, whereby, application preferred by the appellant herein u/S 439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The 1st appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14/11/2018 passed in Cr.A. No. 8103/2018.

The appellant has been arrested by Police Station Nateran, District Vidisha (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.199/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 341/34, 294, 506B, 323/34, 325/34, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2) (va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Allegations against the appellant, in short, are that on 06/07/2018 the accused persons committed marpeet with the complainant with an intention to kill and also used abusive language relating to the caste of the complainant. The appellant assaulted the victim by means of Pharsa, which hit on the left side of his head, due to which, the victim sustained injuries and blood started oozing out. The co-accused Durjna Singh assaulted the victim by means of Lathi, which hit on middle part of his head, due to which, the victim had fallen down on the ground. The co-accused Jasman @ Jaswant had caught hold the victim and the co-accused Durjan Singh and the co-accused Randheer Singh had beaten him by means of lathi, due to which, the victim sustained injuries on various part of his body.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 09/07/2018. It is submitted that charge sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required in the matter. It is submitted that allegation against the appellant is causing injury by means of Farsa on the head of victim. Though it has been mentioned by the Doctor concerned that the injuries sustained by the victim are dangerous to life but as per X-ray report no fracture has been caused to the victim and the victim has been discharged from the hospital after brief spell of hospitalization, therefore, there is no chance of increase in the offence. The PW/1 & PW/2 have turned hostile and did not support the story of the prosecution. Applicant is permanent resident of Gram Payari Tahsil Nateran District Vidisha (M.P.). There is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if he is released on bail. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the appeal 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 10.10.2018 passed in Case No. 136/18 SC ATR is set aside and this appeal u/S 14(A)(2) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities)Act 1989 stands allowed and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rs. One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

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

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

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

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;

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

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

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

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

C.c. as per rules.