High CourtsSingle Bench

Suraj Baghel vs State Of M.P. & Anr

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 27 May 2021 · Citation: (2021) 05 MP CK 0130

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v), 14A(1) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376, 506 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 3189 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

23 paragraphs · 408 words

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J

This first criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short “SC/ST

Actâ€) has been filed against the order dated 17/5/2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bhind in Bail Application No.620/2021 by which

anticipatory bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.22/2021 registered at Police Station Amayan, District Bhind for offence under

Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 (1)(w)(ii) and 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant â€" Suraj Baghel that the appellant has been falsely implicated. He has not committed any offence.

Rather, the husband of the prosecutrix borrowed some money from the applicant and to escape from the aforesaid liability of repayment, false case

has been registered against him. As per prosecution story, the date of incident is 10/4/2018 and the written complaint has been filed on 19/3/2021 and

no explanation has been given for the aforesaid inordinate delay in filing the complaint. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is a married lady and

is having two small kids and she is aged around 28 years. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the allegations levelled are of serious nature and in case of grant of

anticipatory bail to the applicant, investigation as well as prosecution evidence would be adversely affected. Hence, prayed to reject the appeal,

considering the gravity of offence.

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

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and other facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on

merits of the case, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, present appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting

Authority/Investigating Officer.

Appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. He shall further abide by other conditions

as enumerated under sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.