Sohan Singh Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4412 MP

                                                         1
       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 Cr.A. No.4702/2021
             Sohan Singh Vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior Bench:
Dated :17.08.2021

      Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Devendra Choubey, learned PL for the respondent/State.

With consent heard finally.

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

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 22-07-2021

passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Vidisha whereby the

application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

bail has been rejected.

Appellant is in custody since 14-04-2021 in connection with

Crime No.137/2021 registered at Police Station Kurwai District

Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 294, 120-B,

323, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and

3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that

appellant is suffering confinement since 14.04.2021 on false pretext.

No direct allegations of causisng injuries to the deceased against the

present appellant. As per allegations, he caused injury to Udham

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4702/2021 Sohan Singh Vs. State of M.P.

Singh by Lathi and Udham Singh suffered injuries simple in nature.

On the contrary, present appellant suffered fracture over right

claricle bone and, therefore, on the complaint of appellant party case

has been registered against the present complainant vide crime No.

138/2021 for alleged offence under Sections 325, 323, 506 and 294

of IPC. Dispute erupted in respect of movement of appellant party

over the land in question which is a land allegedly belonging to

temple and not under the ownership of complainant party. They

intercepted brother of appellant from movement and therefore

dispute erupted which resulted into death of Harprasad. Learned

counsel raised the point of free-fight. He also raised the point that

present accused and other co-accused suffered injuries and

prosecution has not referred them in charge-sheet which is being

filed, therefore, as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of

Lakshmi Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394

he deserves benefit of bail. Since charge-sheet has already been

filed, therefore, chance of tampering with the evidence is remote. He

does not bear any criminal record. Confinement amounts to pretrial

detention. Appellant undertakes to cooperate in trial and would make

himself available as and when required by the trial Court and shall

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4702/2021 Sohan Singh Vs. State of M.P.

not be source of harassment and embarrassment to the complainant

party. He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions

of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government,

State Government as well as Local Administration regarding

measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene

in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing. Further looking to

the situation of pandemic, he intends to serve the

National/Environmental/Social cause voluntarily, in case bail is

granted. Thus, prayed for grant of bail.

Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and on the basis of

case-diary submitted that appellant along with other co-accused

person caused injuries to complainant party. Therefore, prayer for

dismissal of bail.

Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer

and submitted that looking to the nature of allegations and the

factum of death, his case for bail be rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and

considered the arguments advanced by them.

So far as submission regarding free-fight and non reference of

injuries over accused side are concerned, same are subject matter of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4702/2021 Sohan Singh Vs. State of M.P.

trial. Therefore, at this stage, appellant-Sohan Singh cannot derive

any benefit for bail purpose. However, this Court allows the appeal

of present appellant on the ground that charge-sheet has already been

filed and appellant already suffered more than 4 months of

incarceration, therefore, considering all these circumstances, this

Court intends to allow this appeal if appellant furnishes personal

bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two

solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

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 dissuade him/her 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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4702/2021 Sohan Singh Vs. State of M.P.

6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

7. Appellant shall not be source of harassment and embarrassment in any manner to the complainant party.

8. Appellant shall mark his presence before the concerned Police Station on first week of every month between 10:30 am to 2 pm till conclusion of trial.

9. As per the spirit echoed in the order of Sunita Gandharva Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2020 (3) MPLJ(Cri.) 247 following order is made:

,rn~ }kjk ;g funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd 10 ikS/kksa

dk ¼;FkklaHko dksbZ Hkh Qy nsus okys isM+ vFkok [email protected] tSls isM+½

jksi.k djsxk rFkk mls vius vkl iM+ksl esa isM+ksa dh lqj{kk dh O;oLFkk

djuh gksxh rkfd ikS/ks lqjf{kr jg ldsA vkosnd dk ;g drZO; gS fd

u dsoy ikS/kksa dks yxk;k tk,s] cfYd mUgsa iks"k.k Hkh fn;k tk,A

^^o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA^^ vkosnd laHkor% 6&8

QhV ÅWaps ikS/[email protected]+ksa dks 3&4 QhV xM~<k djds yxk;sxk rkfd os 'kh?kz

gh iw.kZ fodflr gks ldsaA vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djus ds fy,] vkosnd

dks fjgk fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj lacaf/kr fopkj.k

U;k;ky; ds le{k o`{[email protected]/kksa ds jksi.k ds lHkh QksVks çLrqr djuk

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4702/2021 Sohan Singh Vs. State of M.P.

gksxsa A rRi'pkr~] fopkj.k ds lekiu rd gj rhu eghus esa vkosnd ds

}kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izxfr fjiksZV çLrqr dh tk,xhA

o`{kksa dh çxfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk drZO;

gS D;ksafd i;kZoj.k {kj.k ds dkj.k ekuo vfLrRo nkao ij gS vkSj

U;k;ky; vuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh

ykijokgh dks utj vnakt ugh dj ldrk gSA blfy, vkosnd dks

isMk+sa dh çxfr vkSj vkosnd }kjk vuqikyu ds lca/ak esa ,d fjiksZV

çLrqr djus ds fy, funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkonsd }kjk fd;s

x;s vuqikyu dh ,d la{kfIr fjiskVZ bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;sd

rhu ekg esa ¼vxys N% eghuksa ds fy,½ j[kh tk;sxh ftls fd ^^fuZns'k^^

'kh"kZ ds vraxZr j[kk tk,xkA

o`{kkjksi.k esa ;k isM+ksa dh ns[kHkky esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dh

xbZ dksbZ Hkh pdw vkosnd dks tekur dk ykHk ysus ls ofa pr dj

ldrh gSA

vkosnd dks viuh ilna ds LFkku ij bu ikS/[email protected] isMksa dks jkis

us dh Lora=rk gksxh] ;fn og bu jksis x;s isMksa dh Vªh xkMZ ;k ckM+

yxkdj j{kk djuk pkgrk gS] rks og vius Loa; ds O;; ij ;g djus

ds fy;s Lora= gksxkA

bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij fn,

x, gSa rkfd fgalk vkSj cqjkbZ ds fopkj dk izfrdkj] l`tu ,oa izd`fr

ds lkFk ,dkdkj gksus ds ek/;e ls lkeaktL; LFkkfir fd;k tk ldsA

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4702/2021 Sohan Singh Vs. State of M.P.

orZeku esa ekuo vfLrRo ds vko';d vax ds :i esa n;k] lsok]

izse ,oa d:a.kk dh izd`fr dks fodflr djus dh vko';drk gS

D;ksafd ;g ekuo thou dh ewyHkwr izo`fr;ka gSa vkSj ekuo vfLrRo dks

cuk, j[kus ds fy, budk iquthZfor gksuk vko';d gSA

^^;g iz;kl dsoy ,d o`{k ds jksi.k dk iz'u u gksdj

cfYd ,d fopkj ds vadqj.k dk gSA^^

;g funsZ'k vkosnd ds }kjk Lor% O;Dr dh xbZ lkeqnkf;d lsok

dh bPNk ds dkj.k fn;k x;k gS tks LoSfPNd gSA

10. It is expected from the appellant that he shall submit photographs by downloading the mobile application (App) prepared at the instance of High Court for monitoring the plantation through satellite/Geo- Tagging.

Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

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

compliance, if possible, for the office of this Court.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

(Anand Pathak) Judge neetu

SMT NEETU SHASHANK 2021.08.18 10:49:44 +05'30'