High CourtsSingle Bench

Nagmani vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 MP CK 0052

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. K. Shrivastava, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(v), 14A(1) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5, 6 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 368 Of 2021
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

18 paragraphs · 316 words

B. K. Shrivastava, J

Heard on appeal filed under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act filed on 19.01.2021 on behalf of Nagmani S/o Umashankar

Singh Rajput aged about 28 years, who was arrested on 28.07.2020 in connection with the Crime No. 44/2018 registered at Police Station, Kumhari,

District Damoh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST, Act, Damoh by which the learned trial Court

dismissed the application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

This is the second appeal. The first was dismissed on 16.10.2020, after arguing at length with the liberty to file the fresh appeal after recording of the

statement of prosecutrix before the trial Court.

It is submitted by the counsel that the trial of Special Case No. 57/2020 is pending before the Special Judge, Damoh in which the prosecutrix has been

examined on 05.01.2021 as PW-1. She did not support the prosecution case and the prosecution declared her as an hostile witness. Therefore, the

appellant should be enlarged on bail.

The counsel of prosecutrix is also present before the Court, who expressed his no objection.

Looking to the aforesaid statement and all other circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and it is directed

that the appellant namely, Nagmani be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and a

personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

At the time of releasing from custody, all the instructions issued by the government related to Covid-19 shall also be followed by the concerned

authority.