Neelesh Patwa vs State Of M.P @RESPONDEN

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J

None for the respondent No.2/complainant despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the

respondent No.1.

The proceeding was convened through video conferencing.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Seoni in Bail Application No. 528/2020; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail

application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No. 536/2020 registered at P.S. Lakhnadon, Seoni (M.P.) for the

offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

As per the prosecution case, appellant sexually exploited the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and thereafter he denied to marry her. On that,

police registered Crime No536/2020 for the offences punishable under Section376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. During investigation on 13.10.2020 police arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed an application under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order

dated 11.11.2020. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the offence.

It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was major and she herself in her statement recorded by the JMFC under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. clearly

deposed that appellant made sexual relationship with her consent. The appellant has been in custody since 13.10.2020 and the conclusion of trial will

take time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that sufficient evidence is available to connect the appellant with the

offence in question.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that the, appellant is in custody

since 13.10.2020 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be released

on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of 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 trial;

The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to

dissuade him 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 prior permission of the trial Court.

C.C. on payment of usual charges.