Rameshwar Dhakad vs State Of M.P.

The appellant has filed this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 22.06.2020 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shipuri whereby, bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. of appellant has been rejected.

Appellant has been arrested on 17.05.2020 by the Police Station City Pohari, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.135/2020, registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 294, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427 and 188 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of of SC/ST(P.A.) Act.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is suffering confinement since 17.05.2020 and charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that counsel for the appellant that case of the appellant is covered with co-accused Dayanand Dhakad who was granted benefit of bail vide order dated 30.09.2020 passed in CRA.No.5053/2020 he seeks parity. No role is attributable directly over the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that role of appellant is referred twice in the FIR itself and even he was instrumental in blocking deceased Banvari to get medical assistance when his family members were taking him in auto for medical help. This case is not at par with case of Dayanand Dhakad because name of Dayanand Dhakad referred only once at a place where some verbal altercation and scuffle took place.

Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer and submits that on behalf of appellant and his family members threats are being given to the complainant party. Beside that name of appellant figures in the course of events where many accused tried to block the access of deceased to get medical help by blocking the way.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.

Considering the submissions and the fact that present appellant was instrumental in blocking the path of complainant/deceased-Banvari to get medical assistance whereas role of Dayanand Dhakad was confined to earlier incident at Shiv temple therefore, role of both the accused is distinguishable. No case for bail is made out.

Appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.