Shankariya Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7176 MP

                                  1
                                                Cr.A. No.6188/2021

         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   Cr. A. No.6188/2021
               (Shankariya Jatav Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, dated : 09.11.2021

      Shri Girdhari Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the

appellant.

      Mrs. Kalpana Parmar, learned PL for the respondent/State.

The appellant has filed this criminal appeal under Section

14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 13.09.2021

passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shivpuri whereby, bail application

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. of appellant has been rejected.

Appellant has been arrested on 21.05.2021 by the Police

Station- Amola, District- Shivpuri, in connection with Crime

No.87/2021, registered in relation to the offence punishable under

Sections 302, 323, 324, 294, 506, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Sections

3(1)(d), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(v-a) and 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST(Prevention of

Atrocities) Act.

It is the submission of counsel for the appellant that appellant

is in confinement since 21.05.2021 and charge-sheet has already

been filed. This is the case of cross FIR whereby on behalf of

appellant's side cross case has been registered vide crime

Cr.A. No.6188/2021

No.86/2021. On minor pretext, dispute erupted and soon converted

into free fight. Role of present appellant was confined to slapping

the complainant. Counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex court in the cases of Gajanand Vs. State of U.P.

reported in AIR 1954 SC 695, Munir Khan Vs. State of U.P.

reported in AIR 1971 SC 335 and Puran Vs. State of Rjasthan

reported in AIR 1976 SC 912 to submit that when both the parties

involved in free fight, then individual act is to be seen. Confinement

amounts to pretrial detention. Applicant does not bear any criminal

record. He undertakes to cooperate in trial/investigation and shall

not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the

complainant party in any manner. Looking to the period of custody,

he prayed for grant of bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered

the arguments advanced by them.

Considering the submissions and the arguments advanced by

the counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on

merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and

impugned order dated 13.09.2021 is set-aside in the following

terms. It is hereby directed that appellant shall be released on bail

Cr.A. No.6188/2021

on furnishings bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction

of trial Court.

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the 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;

6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, from the office of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules/directions.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid

RASHID KHAN 2021.11.10 11:35:38 +05'30'