Shivnarayan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2639 MP

                          1
              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           CRA-3665-2021
       (SHIVNARAYAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 23.06.2021

      Heard through video conferencing.

      Shri R.D. Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri R.K. Shrivastava

and Ajay Bhargava, Advocates for the appellant.

      Shri Avneesh Singh, learned P.P. for the respondent/State.

This first Criminal Appeal for grant of bail has been filed by the

appellant under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act)

against the order dated 18.06.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST

Act), Bhind, whereby the Bail Application filed by the appellant under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, has been rejected.

The appellant has been arrested in connection with Crime

No.177/2021 registered at Police Station Gormi, District Bhind for

offence punishable under Section 353, 294, 332, 388, 389 and 34 of

I.P.C and Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act.

It is alleged that appellant is president of Ramnath Singh

Homeopathic Collage, Gormi, District Bhind and is aged about 69

years and he is in custody since 17.06.2021. It is argued that he has

falsely been implicated in the present case and he has not committed

any crime in any manner. It is submitted that the matter with respect to

the recognition of the Homeopathic Collage of the appellant was

pending consideration with the authorities, for which he had several

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-3665-2021 (SHIVNARAYAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

complaints and representation to the authorities, but when no action

was taken, he has filed a writ petition before Division Bench of this

Court, which was registered as W.P. No. 3812/2020 and the aforesaid

writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:-

"In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 are clearly violative of Rule 8 (b) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and is also violative of principles of natural justice. Thus, the orders impugned Annexure P/1 and P/2 are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the State Govt. to reconsider the case of the petitioner and after following the provision as contemplated under the Rule 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and after providing of an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a self contained speaking order afresh and outcome be communicated to the petitioner."

It is further submitted that when the order was not complied by

the authorities, he has preferred a Contempt petition which was

registered as Conc. No.1004/2021 in which, the Hon'ble Court was

pleased to issue notice on 14.06.2021 to the respondent No.1. It is

argued that the prosecution has registered a case against the present

appellant for the reasons that they went for a inspection of the Collage

in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.

No.3812/2020 whereby, the appellant misbehaved and has inflicted the

injuries to one Kotwar-Gyan Singh Jatav. On the basis of which, the

FIR was got registered. It is argued that the institution has completed

all the formalities, which is reflected from the findings given by the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-3665-2021 (SHIVNARAYAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Division Bench's order. As the inspection was carried out on three

occasions and more deficiencies were pointed out by the authorities,

but despite of the same, with an ulterior motive as the authorities have

not granted the recognition to the appellant's Institution which for want

of subsequent recognition was not functioning with the day of the

incident. He has relied upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS

IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No.1/2020 as well as order

passed by the Division Bench of the Principal seat on 17.05.2021 IN

RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO

MOTU W.P. (C) No.9320/2021 regarding decongestion of prisoners.

He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed

by this Court and prays for grant of bail. There is no possibility of his

absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. Looking to the

present scenario of COVID-19 as well as considering the age of the

present applicant, he prays for bail.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the application

stating that there are specific allegations against the present applicant

of abusing the one Kotwar of the Village and inflicting injuries which

are medically corroborated, but he fairly submits that the injuries were

found to be simple in nature as per the medical report. It is argued that

in view of the Division Bench's judgment, the inspecting team went to

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-3665-2021 (SHIVNARAYAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

the premises of the institution of the appellant to carry out the

inspection for getting the registration of the appellant's Institution

renewed, but the appellant has not cooperated and on the contrary, he

used abusive language and misbehaved the parties and caused the

incident. A specific query was put forth by this Court that once the

inspection was carried out on three occasions and no deficiencies were

found in the Collage of the appellant as has been held by the Division

Bench coupled with the fact that the authorities are sitting tight over

the matter and has not complied with the directions issued by the

Division Bench and also the fact that when the collage was not

functioning due to the fact that the authorities have not renewed the

registration of the appellant' Institution, then what occasion the

authorities went for inspection. There was no explanation was given by

the State counsel. This Court again put a query that what was the team

has been constituted for carrying out the inspection and whether the

Kotwar of the Village cause of part of the team. He fairly submits that

the aforesaid documents are received from the case diary, but he fairly

submits that applicant is having no criminal past as per the case diary.

Taking into consideration and over all facts and circumstances

of the case and placing reliance upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as well as Division Bench of this Court regarding

decongestion of the aforesaid cases and considering the present

scenario of second phase of COVID-19 and looking to the age of the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-3665-2021 (SHIVNARAYAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

present appellant, without commenting anything on the merits of the

case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application,

accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be

released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of like

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

the case may be with submission of written undertaking and he shall

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

well as guidelines issued by the Central Government, State

Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social

distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID -19)

pandemic and he 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 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-3665-2021 (SHIVNARAYAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

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 is directed to cooperate in investigation as and

when called by the authorities.

8. 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 Public Prosecutor 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.

In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before

releasing the appellant, medical examination of appellant shall be

undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima facie, if it is found that he is

having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up

action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be

ensured, otherwise appellants shall be released immediately on bail and

shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of

residence.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-3665-2021 (SHIVNARAYAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

E- copy of this order be provided to the appellant and E-copy of

this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is

made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy

for practical purposes in respect of this order.

                                                              (Vishal Mishra)
LJ*/-                                                             Judge
        LOKENDRA
        JAIN
        2021.06.24
        17:26:07 -07'00'