Rajendra Bharti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6203 MP

                                   1                              CRA-5584-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   CRA-5584-2021
           (RAJENDRA BHARTI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 29-09-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Pratip Visoriya, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for
respondent No.1-State.

Shri F.A. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant.

This is first criminal appeal under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act filed against the order dated 15/9/2021 passed by Special Judge [the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act] in B.A. No.879/2021 by which the anticipatory bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

The appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.429/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Datia for offence under Sections 406, 294 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant Rajendra Bharti that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. He has not committed any offence. He is an ex-MLA who had been elected three times. False/fabricated FIR has been lodged against the appellant and the complainant and the appellant have now arrived at compromise. In this regard, they have filed an application before the trial Court which is evident as Annexure A-3. It is further submitted that the place of incident is not a public place, therefore, offences under the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not made out. Sections registered under the IPC are triable by the Magistrate wherein except Section 406 of IPC, all other Sections are compoundable. It is further submitted by learned 2 CRA-5584-2021 counsel for the appellant that earlier, there was some dispute between the complainant and the appellant. Thereafter, inadvertently, the complainant has lodged the present FIR wherein due to typographical error, the police has lodged FIR in different words. As no case is made out under the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

and the parties have arrived at compromise, hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 761], Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 727], Rahna Jalal vs. State of Kerala & Anr. [(2021) 1 SCC 733], Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2021) 2 SCC 427], Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P., [(2014) 2 SCC 1], Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2018) 6 SCC 454, Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, [(2014) 8 SCC 273] and Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnataka [(2008) 3 SCC 753].

Learned counsel for the complainant affirmed the factum of compromise between the appellant and the complainant and submitted no objection with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer of the appellant and has submitted that the complainant himself has lodged the present FIR and the appellant has himself mentioned in this appeal at para 6.4 that the dispute between the appellant and the complainant has already been settled, as it is evident by the application submitted by the appellant before the trial Court, which also reflects that the true FIR has been lodged because of which the appellant tried to compromise the matter with the complainant. As the prima facie case is made out under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, as per Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 3 CRA-5584-2021 anticipatory bail can not be granted. Hence, prayed to reject the present criminal appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record.

On perusal of available record, it is apparent that the case is registered under Sections 406, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out.

Hence, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case along with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the rival parties,

without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Hence, this criminal appeal is hereby rejected.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.

(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

ALOK KUMAR 2021.09.29 AKS 18:33:46 +05'30' 11.0.8