Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhaniram Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8085 of 2021
Between:-
DHANIRAM RATHORE S/O SHRI BABULAL
RATHORE , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS WARD NO 8 VILLAGE TATAM PS
MAHARAJPUR DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI B.J. CHOURASIYA, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. PS
MAHARAJPUR DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KISHORILAL AHIRWAR S/O SHRI SARJU PRASAD
AHIRWAR , AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O WARD
NO. 08 VILLAGE TATAM P.S. MAHARAJPUR DISTT.
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT PANDEY, PANEL LAWYER)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This Appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
T he present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the
Act') against the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act,
Chhatarpur (MP) whereby the application of the appellant under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.
Appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.188/2021
registered at Police Station- Maharajpur, District- Chhatarpur for the offence
punishable under Sections 294 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V-A), 3(1)(da) &
3(1) (Dha) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated
Signature Not Verified
SAN in the case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is argued that
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.02.15 11:03:26 IST
there is delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR without there being any explanation
for the same. The notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. has been issued to the
appellant and he has co-operated in the investigation. As the appellant has co-
operated in the investigation in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 41-A
of the Cr.P.C. there is no requirement of taking the appellant in custody. appellant
is a first offender and prays for grant of anticipatory bail. He has placed reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation S.L.P (Criminal)
No.5191/2021 decided on 07.10.2021 wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered
the category and types of offences and also placed reliance upon the judgment
passed in the case of Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal
Appeal No.838/2021), (2021 SCC Online SC 615). He is ready to abide by all the
terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory
bail. On these grounds, he prays for granting of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
P er contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
application stating that anticipatory bail is barred under the Atrocities Act but he
could not dispute the fact that the notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. has
been issued to the appellant and he has co-operated in the investigation. At the time
of filing a charge-sheet, the appellant has filed an application before the trial Court.
Appellant being the first offender is also not disputed by the state counsel.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, without
commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow
this application for grant of anticipatory bail subject to verification of the fact
that the appellant is the first offender. In the event of arrest, the appellant is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one local solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence before the concerning Police
S t a t io n in first week of every month and is directed to cooperate in
Signature Not Verified
investigation. In case of failure to cooperate, the bail granted by this Court shall
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
stand rejected automatically.
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.02.15 11:03:26 IST
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the appellant :-
1. The appellant/s will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond
executed by him;
2. The appellant/s will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3 . The appellant/s will not indulge himself/themselves in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade them/her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the
Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The appellant/s shall not involve any other offence, in case the appellant/s
indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall
automatically cancelled.
5. The appellant/s will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The appellant/s will not leave India without previous permission of the trial
Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. The appellant/s will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police
Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the
Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police
station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the
concerned SHO regarding the same.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
E-copy of this order be provided to the appellant and E-copy of this order
be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-copy of
this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this
order.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.02.15 11:03:26 IST
