Kashiram Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 9173 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9173 MP
Judgement Date : 27 December, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kashiram Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 December, 2021

Author: Nandita Dubey

          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                BENCH AT GWALIOR

                   Cr.A. No. 7477/2021
   (Kashiram Sahu & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & another )
                                 (1)

Gwalior, dated : 27/12/2021

      Shri Sachin Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

      Shri Sanjay Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent

no.1/State.

Shri Rinku Shakya, Advocate for the respondent No.

2/complainant.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This criminal appeal has been preferred under section 14A(2)

of the Act against the impugned order dated 26.11.2021 passed by

Special Judge (Atrocities) Dist. Datia, whereby appellants'

application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has

been rejected by the Court below.

The appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with crime

No. 348/2021 registered at Police Station Indergarh, District Datia in

relation to the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34

of IPC and sections 3 (1) (da) & 3 (1) (dha) of SC & ST Act. Later

on, section 325 of IPC has been added on account of hair line

fracture received by the complainant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the

alleged offence do not fall within the purview of sections 3 (1) (da)

& 3 (1) (dha) of SC & ST Act. He reads over FIR and the statement

recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C to establish that the place of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR

Cr.A. No. 7477/2021 (Kashiram Sahu & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & another )

incident is not in a public view. It has been stated in the FIR as well

as in the statement that the incident happened in the courtyard

situated inside the house of the complainant party. He further stated

that the accused persons have also received injuries and a cross case

has also been registered against the complainant party bearing crime

No. 350/2021 at police station Indergarh, District Datia for the

offence punishable under sections 452, 323, 294, 506, 34 and added

section 324 of IPC. He has further placed reliance on the judgment

of the Apex Court delivered in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of

Uttarakhand and Anr. Reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein,

it has been categorically considered that the incident which happened

inside the house and not in public view and witnessed by public does

not fall under the purview of SC & ST Act. He further placed

reliance on the judgment delivered by co-ordinate Bench of this

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

Anr. reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ 481.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned

counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail

application. It is stated that the courtyard though situated inside the

house, but it is in the public view.

Considered the rival submissions as well as FIR and the

statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., the incident

happened in the courtyard, which is situated inside the house of the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR

Cr.A. No. 7477/2021 (Kashiram Sahu & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & another )

complainant. Hence, it cannot be said that it is a public place as

defined under SC & ST Act. In such circumstances, no offence under

the SC & ST Act is made out. On perusal of the case diaries of crime

No. 348/2021 as well as crime No. 350/2021, it is evident that both

the parties have caused injuries to each other. The appellant No. 1

has also received injuries in the said incident, whereas, complainant

has received hair line fracture in his left shoulder, as a result of

which, section 325 of IPC has been added in the FIR.

In the present case, the main allegation is against the appellant

No. 3/Sukhram. Regarding the other appellants, omnibus allegations

have been made. However, appellant Nos. 1 & 2 have received

injuries in the incident, hence, there is no substance in the contention

of learned counsel that they are falsely implicated. As per the case

diary of crime No. 350/2021, it is apparent that the appellant Nos. 1

to 3 have caused injuries to the complainant party by hard and blunt

object.

As far as appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, looking to their

involvement, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Their

bail application is, therefore, rejected. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 may

surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail. In case, the

appellant Nos. 1 to 3 surrender before the trial court within a period

of ten (10) days from today and apply for regular bail then the same

shall be considered by the trial court at the earliest preferable on the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR

Cr.A. No. 7477/2021 (Kashiram Sahu & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & another )

same day.

As far as appellant No. 4/Smt. Khimma Devi is concerned,

without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application

is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant

No. 4/Smt. Khimma Devi, she shall be released on bail on her

furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000-/-(Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to

the satisfaction of Arresting Authority for her appearance on the

dates given by the concerned Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

following conditions by the appellant No. 4/Smt. Khimma Devi:-

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;

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

3. The appellant will not indulge 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;