Dilip Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6696 MP

 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 1
                                                         Cr.A.No.3924/2022

                 Dilip Jatav Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

Gwalior Bench Dated;05.05.2022

      Shri Manish Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri PPS Bazeeta, learned PP for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for respondent

No.2/complainant.

With consent heard finally.

Present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A)(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 28-02-2022 passed by

Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena whereby the application of the

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

Appellant is in custody since 25-01-2022 in connection with

Crime No.690/2021 registered at Police Station, Station Road, Morena

for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 294,

506, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that false

case has been registered against him. He is suffering confinement since

25-01-2022 and charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, chance of

tampering with evidence/witnesses is remote. It is further submitted that

genesis of crime indicates that minor dispute in respect of bursting

crackers resulted into registration of offence and both the sides stood at

loggerheads because of this case because from the present appellant THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.A.No.3924/2022

side, case against the complainant has also been registered for alleged

offence under Section 307 of IPC, therefore, both the parties are

suffering or suffered confinement.

At the suggestion of this Court, mediation proceedings were held

between the parties and both the parties intended to settle the matter

once and for all and therefore, Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate

was appointed as Mediator in the case and he submitted the mediation

report in which intention of both the parties through mediation

proceedings surfaced and both the parties (their elders on behalf of

appellant and complainant) ready to bury the dispute once and for all.

Amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has also been intended to be paid to the

complainant as compensation for any injury if any sustained by the other

side although occurrence of same is disputed by them.

Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of

Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and in the case of Afcons

Infrastructure Limited and another Vs. Cherian Varkey

Construction Company Private Limited and others, (2010) 8 SCC 24

to submit that mediation is successful remedy in such cases where both

the parties voluntarily come for settlement. At present, appellant is

seeking bail and other side has no objection to such proposition.

Appellant undertakes to cooperate in trial and would make

himself available as and when required by the trial Court and would not

be source of harassment and embarrassment to the complainant party in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.A.No.3924/2022

any manner and would not move in their vicinity. Thus, prayed for grant

of bail.

Counsel for the State opposed the prayer, however he also agreed

upon importance of mediation in such cases where dispute can be buried

once and for all.

Counsel for the complainant has no objection if bail is granted and

affirmed the fact of mediation and intention to settle the matter.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the

arguments advanced by them.

Considering the submissions specially the fact that in the instant

case genesis of crime is minor dispute i.e. bursting of crackers and

dispute originated from it and parties do not have any tainted

background except some minor cases, therefore, they intend to live as

peaceful citizen, therefore, mediation ought to be given a chance

specially in view of the judgments referred above and the judgment of

Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Dayawati Vs.

Yogesh Kumar Gosain, 2017 SCC Online Del 11032 and the fact that

appellant has already suffered sufficient period of incarceration and

chance of tampering with evidence/witnesses is remote, this Court

intends to allow the present appeal. It is hereby directed that the

appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal 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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.A.No.3924/2022

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 him/her 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; and

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

7. Appellant shall not be source of harassment and embarrassment in any manner to the complainant party and shall not have in her vicinity.

Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and

necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil*

ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2022.05.06 00:22:53

-07'00'