High CourtsSingle Bench

Suresh Kumar Namdev And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 16 December 2021 · Citation: (2021) 12 MP CK 0052

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anjuli Palo, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(d,s), 3(2)(va), 14A, 18 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294, 323, 354, 506 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 7676 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 · 415 words

Anjuli Palo, J

This is first criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 for grant of anticipatory bail against the order dated 07.12.2021 passed b y the Special Court (SC/ST) Act, Chhatarpur in Bail Application No. 1202/2021 whereby the application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the appellants has been rejected. Appellants are in apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 157/2021 has been registered against the applicant at Police Station Jujhar Nagar, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(d,s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that Annexure A/2 is the FIR dated 16.11.2021 which was lodged against the complainant in connection with Crime No.156/202 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 323, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and the present incident also happened on the same date of FIR. It is further submitted that the now the matter has been compromised between the parties, hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the objector has no objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the appellants.

Though, grant of anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is barred, however, considering the law laid down by the Supreme court in case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 (6) SCC 454, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of objection from the objector, this appeal is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, appellants - Suresh Kumar Namdev and Ram Vishal Namdev shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, for their appearance before the Arresting Office during the course of investigation of before the trial Court during trial, as the case may be.

It is further directed that the appellants shall abide by all the conditions as enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.