Rajendra Singh and Others vs State of M.P.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

Shri Abhishek Arjaria, Learned Counsel for applicant. Shri Ramesh Shukla learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.

This is an application u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant is under apprehension of arrest in connection with crime No. 323/05 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, Satna for the offences under Sections 323, 294, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the Act").

According to prosecution on 21-6-2005 victim Tirath Prasad Saket, Sarpanch of the village, applicants and Rajendra Kumar Namdeo secretary of Chorhata Gram Panchayat were assembled at the residence of Dr. Ram Krishan Soni for attending the ceremony of marriage at Village Nazirabad, during the course of dinner some altercation took place in between said Tirath Prasad and applicants of this petition. In such altercation abuses were also used by the applicants in continuation of it as alleged the said Sarpanch was beaten by all the applicants. The incident was reported in writing by the Rajendra Kumar Namdeo, the Secretary of the Panchayat. On the basis of aforesaid written report at the initial stage the offence was registered only under Sections 323, 294 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code. But subsequent to it on interrogation u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure the aforesaid provisions of the Act have been invoked.

Counsel for the applicants has submitted that initial version of the FIR does not say about any act of any applicants regarding humiliation to the victim Tirath Prasad on account of his caste, which is covered by the said Act. He further submitted that according to FIR only bailable offences have been alleged against them but because of political enmity subsequently due to one reason or another the aforesaid S.C.S.T. Act was invoked while such Act is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

He further submitted that in the FIR on account of the caste of the victim nothing was mentioned even at the stage of interrogation only the caste of the victim is mentioned but it has not been mentioned that incident was happened because of the caste of the victim which is covered by the said Act. In such circumstances, it is apparent that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case and according to him the bar created by Section 18 of the said Act is not applicable to the present matter, thus, applicants be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand learned Dy. Government Advocate submits that though ingredients of S.C.S.T has not been mentioned in the FIR but at the stage of interrogation such allegations are found against the applicants. Thus, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the said Act applicants are not entitled for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, after perusing the case diary, it is apparent that according to FIR incident did not take place because of that the victim was belonging to caste which is covered by the said Act. Beside this no ingredients are found in the FIR about the offences of the said Act and considering other facts and circumstances it appears that no act has been attributed to humiliate the victim on the basis of his caste, but alleged incident was happened because of earlier political enmity or sudden altercation in the function of marriage. Thus, in such circumstances the bar of Section 18 of the said Act is not applicable while other alleged offences are bailable, whenever Section 18 is not applicable then in that circumstances, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain, bail application as principles laid down in the matter of Raj Kumar Jain v. State of M.P., 2000 (3) MPLJ 10 : 2000 (2) M.P.H.T. 35 (NOC):

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that merely by using the word CHAMAR the provision of the Act is not at all applicable. The origin of incident lies somewhere else. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1995 (2) MPWN 70 Raghuveer Prasad v. State of M.P. Thus, the bar of applicability of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted. There is force in the submissions of the applicant''s counsel. Other sections for which offence is registered are 294 and 506-B, Indian Penal Code. Section 294 is bailable and only Section 506-B is non-bailable. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation of non-disbursement of the scholarship against the complainant due to which the incident has taken place, the applicant is allowed and applicant is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order is limited only for a period of six weeks and within that period applicant may surrender and apply for regular bail before the competent Court.

In view of the decided case and considering other facts and circumstances of the case without expressing any opinion on merits of the case application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest on furnishing their personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) each along with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of arresting authority applicants Rajendra Singh, Subhash Sharma and Mirgendra Singh be released on bail.

It is further directed that applicants shall abide the conditions as enumerated u/s 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

This order shall remain in force for 60 days from today. Meanwhile applicant may approach to appropriate Court for regular bail.

Petition is allowed.

C.C. as per rules.