Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saleemuddin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2021
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
1 CRA-3254-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3254-2021
(SALEEMUDDIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Bhatiya, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent / State.
None for the victim, though served.
Heard.
This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the SC / ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 21.5.2021 passed by the
Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raisen in bail
application no.228/21 whereby the application filed by the appellants under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.
188/21 Police Station Silwani, District- Raisen, for the offenses punishable
under Sections 186, 353, 332, 294, 269, 270, 506 of the IPC and under
Sections 3(1)(dh), 3(1)(d), 3(2) of the SC/ST Act and under Section 51 of
the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and
has falsely been implicated in the case. The applicant has not done any wrong
with the complainant. In support of his contentions, he also relied upon a
judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and
the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.
32575/2021 on 20.07.2021, M.Cr.C. No. 34701/2021 on 05.08.2021 and
the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.A. No.
5838/2020 on 01.04.2021. He further submits that custodial interrogation of
the applicant is not required. He is also ready to co-operate with investigation
and shall abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court.
Hence, this appeal be allowed by setting-aside the impugned order and
2 CRA-3254-2021
appellant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned PL opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant has
prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail application and also stated that
prima-facie the case is made out against the appellant for committing offence
under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Further submits that the
appellant has a long criminal history. Therefore, in view of the provisions of
Section 18 of the Act, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on
anticipatory bail.
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the case diary, prima-facie offence under the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out as the applicant intentionally
knowing the fact that the complainant is belonging to a particular caste, has
committed the aforesaid offence. Further, the judgments on which reliance
have been placed, do not help the applicant as the facts of the present case
are entirely different. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on
anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal is rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE
ashish
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Date: 2021.08.27 11:35:19 IST
