Kamal Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1377 MP

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.2213/2021 (KAMAL JATAV VS. STATE OF M.P.)

Gwalior dtd. 07/04/2021 Shri Rajnish Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri R.B.Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State.

None for the complainant.

It is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the

complainant has been informed about the pendency of this appeal,

as required under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Case Diary is available.

This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 being aggrieved by the order dated 15/03/2021 passed by

Special Judge, Bhind rejecting the anticipatory bail application.

The appellant apprehends his arrest in Crime No.11/2021

registered by Police Station Malanpur, District Bhind for offence

punishable under Sections 376, 506, 384, 376(2)(n) and 376(D) of

IPC and Section 3(1)(W) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "SC/ST Act").

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that although

it is a case of gang rape, but there is no allegation of committing

rape on the prosecutrix against the appellant. It is submitted that the

allegations are that co-accused Santosh Sharma had committed rape

on the prosecutrix on 28/06/2019 and thereafter had clicked some

obscene photographs. Under the threat of sending those

photographs to the husband of the prosecutrix, it is alleged that

Santosh Sharma committed rape on the prosecutrix on 01/01/2021

along with another co-accused Deepak Tiwari. It is alleged that the

appellant was standing outside of the room. It is further alleged that

when the prosecutrix came outside, then the appellant also

requested her to allow him to have physical relationship with her.

On refusal by the prosecutrix, it is alleged that the appellant and co-

accused extended threat to her life. It is submitted that it is a case of

false implication. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time

and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the

prosecution case.

Per contra, the appeal is opposed by the counsel for the

State. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the appellant

has a criminal history. One more offence under Section 324 of IPC

was registered against him.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

without commenting on the merits of the case, the appeal is

allowed subject to condition that if the appellant appears before the

Investigating Officer (Arresting Officer) on or before 16/04/2021,

he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer

(Investigating Officer).

The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation

by the Investigating Officer as and when required. He shall further

abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of

Section 438 of Cr. P. C.

It is made clear that in case if the appellant fails to appear

before the Investigating Officer ( Arresting Authority) on or before

16/04/2021, then this order in respect of the appellant shall lose its

effect and the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to take him in

custody.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on

18/03/2021 in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation

regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.

C.c. as per rules.

                                                        (G.S.Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/-                                                      Judge

         PRINCEE BARAIYA
         2021.04.07
         17:35:12 -07'00'