Maharaj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1538 MP

                          1
              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           CRA-1922-2021
         (MAHARAJ SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Jabalpur, Dated : 23.04.2021

      Heard through video conferencing.

      Shri Anurag Shivhare, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned P.P. for the State.

      Shri Sandeep Mahawar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14 A(2) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 2015 being aggrieved by order passed by the Special Judge

(Atrocities), District Damoh whereby, bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C.

of the appellant has been rejected. Appellant apprehend his arrest in

connection with Crime No. 36 of 2003 registered at Police Station

Tejgarh, District Damoh for the offence punishable under Sections 294,

323 and 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

It is argued that initially the offence was registered in the year

2003 for offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506-II of IPC, and

subsequently, after trial the appellant has also been convicted, but the

complainant has filed private complaint alleging therein that the

prosecution has not registered the complaint as per her complaint,

therefore, she has made private complaint alleging the offences under

SC/ST Act and ultimately the matter was traced out, the warrants have

been issued against the present appellant. It is submitted that he has

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-1922-2021 (MAHARAJ SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

stood convicted for the case registered by the police Authorities and

the present case is an outcome of that case. He is ready to abide by all

the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court while

considering his bail application.

Per contra, learned P.P. for the State as well as counsel for the

complainant have opposed the application stating that there is specific

bar under Section 18 of the Act for consideration of anticipatory bails.

He has further pointed out that there is specific allegation of uttering

the words with respect to the caste of the complainant.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as

well as considering the the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench

of this Court in the case of Atendra Singh Rawat vs State of M.P.

And anr. reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ 481, this Court deems it

appropriate to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It

is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be

released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the

like amount to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer/trial Court, as

the case may be with submission of written undertaking that he will

abide by the terms and conditions of different circulars, orders as well

as guidelines issued by Central Government, State Government as well

as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-1922-2021 (MAHARAJ SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic and they will

have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

following conditions by the appellant:-

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of

the bond executed by him;

2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case

may be;

3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so

as to him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police

Officer, as the case may be;

4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence

of which he is accused;

5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the

trial; and

6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission

of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

7. The appellant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned

Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it

would be the duty of the P.P to send E-copy of this order to SHO of

concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police, concerned

who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-1922-2021 (MAHARAJ SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for

compliance.

                                                  (Vishal Mishra)
LJ*/-                                                 Judge



         LOKENDRA
         JAIN
         2021.04.23
         18:01:16 -07'00'