Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.6531/2021
(ARJUN SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.)
Gwalior, Dated : 11/11/2021
Shri D.S.Rajawat, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the State.
None for the respondent No. 2/complainant.
It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the complainant
has been informed about the pendency of this appeal as required
under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "Act").
Case diary is available.
This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Act
against the order dated 26/10/2021 passed by Special Judge
(Atrocities Act) Guna, rejecting the anticipatory bail application.
The appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime
No.65/2021 registered by Police Station Maksudangarh, District
Guna for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of
IPC and Sections 3(1)(D), 3(1)(G) and 3(2)(va) of the Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that according
to the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report that she has
taken certain land from Munna Singh on Batai and when she was
carrying out the agricultural activities, then the appellants came there
and objected to her agricultural activities. When she informed that
she has taken land on Batai from Munna Singh, then it is alleged that
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.6531/2021
(ARJUN SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.)
not only she was assaulted but she was humiliated by calling her by
her caste name. It is submitted that there is a property dispute
between the appellants and Munna Singh. Accordingly, the appellant
No.2 had approached the Tahsildar, Tahsil Maksudangarh, District
Guna under Section 250 of M.P.L.R. Code and accordingly, on
09/02/2021 an order for removal of illegal possession was passed
against Munna Singh and being aggrieved by the said order a false
report has been lodged against the appellants. It is further submitted
that under the facts and circumstances no offence under the Act
would be made out and the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
would be maintainable in spite of the bar as contained under Section
18 and 18-A of the Act.
Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel
for the State.
The appellants have filed a copy of the order dated 09/02/2021
passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Maksudangarh, District Guna in case
No.03A-70/2020-21. Even in the Kaifiyat, which has been sent by the
concerning police station to the office of Additional Advocate
General, it is mentioned that in compliance of the order passed under
Section 250 of M.P.L.R. Code, the possession of the property in
dispute was handed over to Arjun Singh/appellant No.1 and only on
this issue a false report was lodged and accordingly, a closure report
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.6531/2021
(ARJUN SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.)
was prepared and was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police,
AJK, Gwalior. However, in the light of medical report of complainant
as well as statements of witnesses, it has been directed to file the
charge-sheet.
Be that whatever it may.
It appears that an order for removal of possession was passed
against Munna Singh. Once that order was passed, then neither
Munna Singh nor his agents can maintain the possession over the
land in dispute. The complainant in her statement under Section 161
of Cr.P.C. has stated that she had taken the land on Batai from Munna
Singh. After the order under Section 250 of M.P.L.R. Code was
passed against Munna Singh and the possession was also delivered to
the appellant No.1, then Munna Singh and all his agents looses their
right to maintain their possession over the land in dispute.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that bar as contained under Section 18 and 18-A of the Act
may not be applicable and without commenting on the merits of the
case, the appeal is allowed subject to condition that if the appellants
appear before the Investigating Officer (Arresting Officer) on or
before 18/11/2021, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) each
with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.6531/2021
(ARJUN SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.)
Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).
The appellants shall make themselves available for
interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. They
shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 438 of Cr. P. C.
It is made clear that in case if the appellants fail to appear
before the Investigating Officer (Arresting Authority) on or before
18/11/2021, then this order shall lose its effect and the Investigating
Officer shall be at liberty to take him in custody.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021
in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of
bail be sent to the complainant.
C.c. as per rules.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/- Judge
PRINCEE BARAIYA
2021.11.11
18:45:23 +05'30'
