Jai Jayram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr

Learned counsel for the State informs that due intimation to the victim in accordance with Sec 15A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989, in short the Act, has been sent through office of the Addl. Advocate General but despite that no one appears and

therefore, the victim is deemed to be served.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The present appeal u/S 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act assails the order dated 24/6/19 passed by Special Judge SC/ST ( Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 Distt. Guna whereby application preferred by the appellant herein u/S 438 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

Appellant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 376 (N), 344, 370 (d) (2) of IPC and u/S 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities)registered as Crime No.47/2016 at Police Station Dharnavada, District Guna.

Learned Panel Lawyer 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 anticipatory bail is made out.

Appellant had initially granted anticipatory bail by order dated 3/8/18 passed in Cr.A. No. 5020/18 since prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution

story. However, the said grant of anticipatory bail inter alia subject to the condition that appellant shall mark his attendance at the concerned Police

Station once every week starting from 6/8/18.

It is submitted that the order of bail could be obtained on 5/8/18 and therefore, appellant could not appear at the concerned Police Station on the said

date. However, there is no explanation as to why appellant did not come back to the trial Court or this court to seek extension of condition No.7.

Appellant was ultimately arrested on 19/6/19. Appellant has no criminal antecedent and the material placed on record does not disclose possibility of

the appellant fleeing from justice .

In view of the above,this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 24/6/19 passed in bail application No. 726/19 is quashed and this appeal u/S 14(A)(2) of SC/ST(Prevention of

Atrocities)Act 1989 stands allowed and it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal

bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.

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;

The appellant shall plant 25 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of appellant or

at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next

one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at his own expenses. In case the appellant is unable to afford incurring of such expenses,

then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at

concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government. The appellant shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this

condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this court may consider cancellation of bail.

For effective implementation of this order in the interest of betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district within

which the appellant resides is directed to assist the appellant/accused to comply with condition No.7 by extending all possible financial and material

assistance to the appellant admissible under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State.

The senior most available learned Public Prosecutor of the concerned District is directed to file verification report before the trial Court concerned

after carrying out inspection personally or through SHO of police station of the concerned area, disclosing as to whether appellant has complied with

condition No.7 or not, and if yes to what extent?

The learned trial Judge on receiving report of non-compliance of condition No.7 shall forthwith communicate the same to the Registry of this Court.

The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate Bench in shape of PUD.

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

Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives.

A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the

place of residence of the appellant for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology.

For the time being this case stands disposed of.

C.c as per rules.