High CourtsSingle Bench

Sonu Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 26 November 2021 · Citation: (2021) 11 MP CK 0087

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anjuli Palo, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(va), 14A, 34, 376(D), 506 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 437(3)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 6101 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

9 paragraphs · 343 words

Anjuli Palo, J

This is second appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against order dated 25.9.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST), Betul in Bail Application No.541/2021 whereby the application of the appellant for grant of regular bail has been rejected. First appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn on 06.8.2020 in Cr.A.No.3253/2020.

As per prosecution case, on 11.3.2020 the prosecutrix lodged a report that Ravi Gayeki and Dinesh @ Pillan had taken off her clothes behind Pump House and committed rape with her. In statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that appellant taken off her clothes and committed rape, but asked her to mention the names of aforesaid Ravi and Dinesh, therefore, offences under sections 376(D), 506, 34, 3(2)(v-a) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been registered vide Crime No.204/2020 at Police Station, Amla, District Betul.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The appellant is in custody since 14.5.2020. There is changed circumstance. The prosecutrix turned hostile as she has stated nothing against the applicant. Trial would take considerable time.

Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case; the prosecutrix alongwith her husband is present before this Court has stated that she has no objection to grant of bail in favour of the appellant as he is her real brother-in-law; above changed circumstances; period of custody; and trial would take considerable time, without commenting on merits, this appeal is allowed.

It is directed that Appellant-Sonu Rathore be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance on the dates so fixed by that Court during trial.

The appellant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the appellant is allowed.