Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 18.10.2019 passed

by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sagar in B.A.No.1213/2019; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed

by appellant namely Rajesh Kumar Yadav, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.170/2019 registered at P.S. Khimlasa,

Distt. Sagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 342 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(1), 3(2)(v)(a) of ST/SC (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, who apprehends his arrest in the crime.

As per prosecution case, on 14.03.2016 when prosecutrix was alone at her house situated at village Nai Basti, Khimlasa appellant came to her house

and committed rape with her on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter he denied to marry her. On that, police registered Crime No. 170/2019 registered

at P.S. Khimlasa, Distt. Sagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 342, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(1), 3(2)(v)(a) of ST/SC

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant filed an application before the trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected. Being

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

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. It is alleged that for the first

time appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix on 14.03.2016 while the prosecutrix lodged the report on 13.10.2019. There is no plausible

explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecutrix was major and consenting party. Prosecution did not file any caste certificate of the

prosecutrix, so offence under Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out against the appellant. The

appellant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. Hence, it is prayed that the appellant be released on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector opposed the prayer and submitted that appellant sexually

exploited the prosecutrix who belongs to SC community, so looking to the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, appellant

is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.

Provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are attracted only when from the case diary, an offence under the provisions of

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. In the crime registered for the offences under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. While in this case prosecution did not file any

caste certificate of the prosecutrix to show that prosecutrix belongs to SC or ST community, therefore prima facie no offence under the provisions of

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that

prosecutrix was major and it is alleged that for the first time appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix on 14.03.2016 while the prosecutrix lodged

the report on 13.10.2019, without commenting on the merits of the case the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant

in the aforesaid crime, he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with a solvent

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his regular appearance before the Police during investigation or before the

Court during trial.

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 co-operate 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 prior permission of the trial Court/ Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.