Rajendra Singh Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5512 MP

                              1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       CRA-5412-2021
     Rajendra Singh Meena and anr. Vs. State of MP and anr.

Gwalior, Dated:16-09-2021

      Shri S.S. Rajput, Counsel for the appellants.

      Shri A.K. Nirankari, Counsel for the State/respondent No. 1.

Shri Harshwardhan Singh Sisodiya, Counsel for the

complainant through video conferencing.

Case diary is available.

This first criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short

"Act") has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime

No.75/2021 registered by Police Station Jamner Distt. Guna for

offence punishable under Sections 353, 332, 186, 294, 34 of IPC and

Sections 3(1)(n), 3(1)(/k) and 3(2)(va) of the Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that it is clear

from the allegations made in the FIR that the appellants are asking

their legitimate money which was payable under the MANREGA

Scheme, whereas the complainant was insisting that the appellants

should also get more work done. It is submitted that in the FIR, there

is no allegation that the appellants had humiliated or insulted the

complainant by calling him by his caste name. Under the facts and

circumstances of the case, bar as contained under Section 18 and 18-

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-5412-2021 Rajendra Singh Meena and anr. Vs. State of MP and anr.

A of the Act would not apply. The appellants are ready and willing to

cooperate with the Investigating Officer and there is no possibility of

their absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.

Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the State as well as counsel for the complainant. However, neither

the counsel for the State nor counsel for the complainant were in a

position to clarify as to whether the appellants were Contractors or

they themselves have worked under MANREGA Scheme. Counsel

for the State further clarified that the police does not wish to arrest

the appellants and they have also issued a notice under Section 41(1)

(a) of Cr.P.C. asking them to appear before the Trial Court.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the

parties.

The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the

case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN

PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the

States to constitute a High Powered Committee to consider the

release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme

Court has observed as under :

"The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID - 19).

Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-5412-2021 Rajendra Singh Meena and anr. Vs. State of MP and anr.

the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled. We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are undertrial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.

It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case, coupled with the fact that neither the prosecutrix nor the

counsel for the complainant are in a position to clarify as to whether

the appellants had worked as Labourer under the MANREGA

Scheme or not and why they were asking for money under the

MANREGA Scheme and further in the FIR actual words uttered by

the appellants have also not been disclosed, this Court is of the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-5412-2021 Rajendra Singh Meena and anr. Vs. State of MP and anr.

considered opinion that the bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the Act

may not apply. Accordingly, the appeal for grant of anticipatory bail

is allowed. It is directed that if the appellants appear before the

Investigating Officer on or before 23.09.2021 and furnish their

personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) each with

one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

Investigation Officer, then they shall be released on bail. The

appellants shall also furnish an undertaking that they will abide by all

the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt.

or Local Administration (General or Specific) from time to time for

combating Covid-19.

The appellants are directed to strictly follow all the

instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State

Govt. or Local Administration for combating Covid19. If it is

found that the appellants have violated any of the instructions

(whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State

Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall

automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police

Authorities shall immediately take them in custody. The

appellants are further directed to supply a copy of this bail order

to the police station having jurisdiction over their place of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-5412-2021 Rajendra Singh Meena and anr. Vs. State of MP and anr.

residence.

The other conditions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. shall remain the

same.

In case of violation of any of the condition(s) mentioned

above, this order shall automatically lose its effect.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on

18.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation

regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.

With aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2021.09.17 16:12:21 +05'30'