Madhya Pradesh High Court
Janki Lal Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 15416 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. JANKI LAL SAHU S/O SHRI RATAN LAL SAHU,
AGE 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GRAM BAGHERI
GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANTOSH SAHU S/O SHRI JANKI LAL SAHU, AGE
25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GRAM BAGHERI GUNA,
DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BRAJ DAS SAHU S/O SHRI JANKI LAL SAHU,
AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GRAM BAGHERI
GUNA, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI D. S. RAJAWAT- ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION BAMORI DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COM PLAIN AN TS THROUGH POLICE STATION
BAMORI DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI R.K. AWASTHI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1- STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The appellants have filed this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of
t h e Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act,\1989 being aggrieved by order dated 06-12-2023 passed by Special Judge
(Atrocities), Guna rejecting the application for anticipatory bail filed under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.133 of
2023 registered by Police Station Bamori, District Guna (M.P.) for offences
punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
As per the case of prosecution, Banwari Ahirwar, reported to PS Bamori,
District Guna that on 30-07-2023, around 04:30, he took exception to direct
connection of electricity by accused. On his exception, accused Santosh,
Brajdas and Jankilal started abusing him in filthy language. All three accused
assaulted him with lathi. Rajaram Sahariya and Panbai rescued him. Accused
threatened to kill him. On such allegations, PS Bamori registered FIR at Crime
No.133 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of
IPC and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellants were given notice
under Section 41-A of CrPC. They have duly complied with the notice and on
completion of investigation, Final Report was filed on 21-11-2023. The
appellants applied for anticipatory bail, but the learned Special Judge rejected
their application vide order dated 06-12-2023.
Learned counsel for the appellants, in addition to the grounds mentioned
in the appeal, submits that in compliance of notice under Section 41-A of
CrPC, the appellants cooperated with the investigation but they were given no
intimation about filing of charge sheet. Therefore, appellants are apprehending
their arrest as they could not appear before the trial Court on the date of
cognizance. Learned counsel submits that no offence punishable u/s 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act is made out against appellants. Final Report has been
submitted, therefore, there is no likelihood of their interfering with the
investigation or tampering with the evidence. Appellants are permanent residents
of District Guna (M.P.), therefore, there is no likelihood of absconding leaving
behind their family and home. Jail incarceration would bring social disrepute and
personal hardship to the appellants and their families.
Learned counsel for the appellants relying on the judgments of Supreme
Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of investigation (2022) 10
SCC 51, further contends that the appellants have cooperated in investigation in
compliance with the notice issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C, therefore,
rejection of their application by learned Special Judge, was unwarranted.
Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the appellants may be
released on anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for State opposes the anticipatory bail and
cites criminal antecedent of one case against each of the appellants.
I n reply, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that Jankilal was
acquitted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and appellants
Santosh and Brajdas were sentenced to fine for offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC. The appellants have never been convicted for any major
offence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and overall
circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal. The order
dated 06-12-2023 is set-aside and it is directed that in the event of arrest of
appellants Janki Lal Sahu, Santosh Sahu and Braj Das Sahu, they shall be
released on bail in relation to Crime No.133 of 2023 registered by Police Station
Bamori, District Guna (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294,
506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act upon furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each
with one solvent surety each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the
officer making arrest/trial Court, for compliance with the following conditions:
(1) Appellants shall remain present on each date of hearing as may be
directed by the concerned Court;
(2) Appellants shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar
nature;
(3) Appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer;
(4) Appellants shall not directly or indirectly attempt to temper with the
evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;
(5) During trial, the applicants shall ensure due compliance of provisions of
Section 309 of Cr.P.C. regarding examination of witnesses in attendance;
This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach
of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective without reference to
the Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
MKB
