Pankaj Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1750 MP

                                    1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       Cr.A No.2375/2021
             (Pankaj Dubey Vs. State of M.P. & others)

Gwalior, Dated:-03/05/2021
      Matter is heard through video conferencing.

      Shri Achyut Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, learned Deputy Advocate

General for the respondent/State.

Shri M.S. Tomar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

This second criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-

(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 04/03/2021 passed by

Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Datia, whereby the application of the

appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.

Appellant is apprehending his arrest for the alleged offences

registered at Crime No.15/2020 at Police Station Pandokhar, District

Datia, punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC added

Sections 325, 326 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "SC/ST Act").

Learned counsel for the appellant- Pankaj Dubey has

submitted that the appellant has not committed any offence. He has

been falsely implicated in the case. Earlier the case was registered

under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(2)

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A No.2375/2021 (Pankaj Dubey Vs. State of M.P. & others)

(Va) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, Section 325 and 326 of IPC has been

enhanced. It is further submitted that victim of this case has prepared

fabricated documents and he was intentionally shifted to Bhopal to

manage the same. The documents reflect that no case is made out

against the appellant under Section 325, 326 of IPC. This is second

criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant for grant of bail. Earlier, the

appellant has been granted benefit by this Court in the light of

judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar:[(2014) 8

SCC 273] vide order dated 27/08/2020 passed in Cr.A.

No.4520/2020. Thereafter, Sections 325 & 326 of IPC has been

enhanced. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to abide by

any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed to

allow present appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the

complainants have vehemently opposed the appeal and has submitted

that earlier the case was registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34

of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, therefore, the

appellant was granted benefit by this Court in the light of judgment

passed in Arnesh Kumar (supra), but now Sections 325 & 326 of IPC

has been enhanced. It is further submitted that there are specific

allegations against the present appellant. Hence, prayed to reject this

repeat criminal appeal and not to grant anticipatory bail to the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A No.2375/2021 (Pankaj Dubey Vs. State of M.P. & others)

appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary.

It is apparent from the perusal of case diary and documents

available on record that the case is registered against the appellant

under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 325, 326 of IPC and Sections 3(2)

(V), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act. Therefore, considering the gravity of

offence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory

bail to the appellant.

Accordingly, this second criminal appeal filed for grant of

anticipatory bail to the appellant stands dismissed.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge Shubhankar* SHUBHANKAR MISHRA 2021.05.03 17:05:17 +05'30'