Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2021
Author: Anjuli Palo
1 CRA-5169-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-5169-2020
(HARI PATEL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
10
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-03-2021
Mr.Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms.Seema Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
None for the respondent No.2, though served.
Heard.
This is first criminal appeal u/s 14-A (1 & 2) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against order dated
12.3.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST), Chhatarpur in Bail Application
No.67/2020 whereby the prayer of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail
has been rejected.
A complaint has been lodged by complainant-Khanua Ahirwar who
belongs to scheduled caste that on 26.9.2017 at about 11 am when he was
going to field for irrigation purposes the accused persons came there and
hurled abuses with caste name and also threatened the complainant with dire
consequences, if he carries out any agricultural activity over the field.
Therefore, a complaint has been registered against the appellants who are
apprehending their arrest in connection of Complaint Case No. SCATR
77/2019 registered before Special Judge (SC/ST), Chhatarpur for offences
under sections 294, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(B), 3(1)(D) & 3(1)(G), 3(2)
(5)(A) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. There is land dispute
between the appellants and complainant party. In this regard a judgment dated
03.1.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.5-A/2018 by Civil Judge Class-I, Rajnagar,
District Chhatarpur. The complaint has been filed belatedly. The learned court
below without appreciating the facts of the case has rejected the prayer for
2 CRA-5169-2020
anticipatory bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer for bail. However,
submitted that no external injury has been received by the complainant.
Considering that there is civil dispute between the parties with regard to
suit properties in the civil suit, the incident took place on 26.9.2017 and
complaint has been filed after an year, the complainant has not suffered any
external injury and taking into account the facts and circumstances, without
commenting on merits of the case, the appeal is allowed.
It is directed that appellants-Hari Patel, Hardayal Patel, Devidayal Patel,
Laxmi, Jagdish and Kanhai Patel be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event
of their arrest by the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer on their furnishing
bail bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] each with
one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Officer for their appearance before him during the course of investigation or
before the trial Court, during trial as the case may be.
It is further directed that the appellants shall abide by all the conditions
as enumerated under section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
It is made clear that appellants shall not involve in similar offence in
future, failing which this order shall immediately become ineffective.
With the aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE
RM
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RAJESH T MAMTANI
Date: 2021.03.16 18:49:30 IST
