Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Gopal Upadhyay @ Sadhu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 August, 2021
Author: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-3437-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3437-2021
(KRISHNA GOPAL UPADHYAY @ SADHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Mahendra Pateria, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. D.K. Khare, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
None for the Objector.
Case diary is available.
Heard on I.A Nos.12094/2021 and 12852/2021.
For the reasons assigned in the applications, both the applications are
allowed and the documents are taken on record.
This is first appeal under Section 14-A of The Scheduled Castes and
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated
02.06.2021 passed by the Court of IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge Damoh
passed in Bail Application No.433/2021.
T he appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.294/2021 registered by Police Station Damoh Dehat, Damoh for offence
punishable under Sections 294, 323, 341 and 506 of IPC & 3(1)(Da)(ii) &
3(1)(Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant has not
uttered the caste of the complainant. Due to political enmity, the appellant has
been implicated in the case. The ingredients of the alleged offence are not
made out. In support of his arguments he relied on the judgment of the apex
Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand and
another, in Cr. Appeal No.707/2020 and further in the case of Danish Khan
@ Saahil vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in bail application No.3497/2020.
Further, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the similar circumstances has
Signature Not Verified
SAN
allowed the appeals in the case of Lalji Ram Raghuvanshi vs. The State of
Date: 2021.08.03 16:47:41 IST
2 CRA-3437-2021
M.P. and others (Cr.A No.9771/2019 vide order dated 21.01.2020) and also
in the case of Sunil Soni and others vs. The State of M.P., (Cr. A
No.3677/2021 vide order dated09.07.2021). The appellant is ready to co-
operate with investigation and shall abide by all the conditions which may be
imposed by this Court; hence, prays for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposes the bail
application and prayed for it's dismissal.
Counsel for the objector is not online.
Heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the entire material
available on record.
Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegations & evidence and keeping in the mind the principle of law in the
case of Hitesh Verma (supra) so also the fact that it is a case of political
rivalry, hence without commenting anything on merits of the case the appeal
is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest or surrender of appellant
before the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer in relation to the
aforementioned crime number within a period of 15 days from today, he shall
be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a solvent surety in like amount
to satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer on following conditions:
(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
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
(4) The appellant shall not commit any offence during the entire period
of bail;
3 CRA-3437-2021
(5) The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;
(6) The appellant shall inform the Investigating Officer/trial Court about
his address and residence in case he moves out from his permanent address
for any point of time;
(7) The appellant shall not contact any of the other accused persons in
this case in any manner whatsoever; and
(8) Such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of
section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
With the aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
pb
