Vikendra Rawat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J

The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the

order dated 16/11/2021 passed by trial Court; whereby, application of appellant preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

Appellant has been arrested on 31/10/2021 by Police Station Kotwali, District Datia in connection with Crime No.284/2021 registered in relation to the

offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, Sec. 25, 27 of Arms Act and Sec. 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.

The story of prosecution case is that complainant is having previous enmity with one Sonu Balmik with regard to occultism and due to which i.e on

11.06.2021 at about 11:00 am when the complainant after taking dinner, he roaming outside his house, at that time, accused person namely Sonu

Balmik, Sallu Balmik, Umesh Balmik and Kashi Prasad came there by two motorcycles and with intention to kill, accused Sallu Balmik fired gunshot

which hit on his right thigh. Blood was oozing out, thereafter he fell down. His brother-Suneel Balmik, Rohit Balmik and Aman Balmik took him to

District Hospital Datia, where after taking treatment, he has been referred to Jhansi. On his report, aforesaid crime was registered against the

aforesaid co-accused. There is no named FIR against the present applicant and he was not present on the spot. The applicant has made an accused

on the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused-Shivam, thereafter, he was arrested. A 315 bore country made pistol

was seized from the possession of present appellant.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated and he is in custody since 31/10/2021. He is

permanent resident of Village Gondhari, Police Station Bedoni, District Datia. Conclusion of trial will take some time. Hence, he prayed for grant of

bail.

Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection.

Looking to the circumstances of the case and the fact that appellant is i n custody since 31.10.2021 and conclusion of trial will take time, but without

commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal should be allowed and by allowing the appeal it is ordered that if

appellant furnishes bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

trial Court, he should be released on bail.

He will present during trial before the trial Court on each and every date. Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules/directions.