Pankaj Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2908 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                   ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2004 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
PANKAJ VERMA S/O AMAR SINGH VERMA, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, STATE DISASTER EMERGENCY
FORCE   OMTI  JABALPUR   GRAM   RATAGADH
NEPANAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIPIN YADAV - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      MAHILA   POLICE  STATION  BURHANPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    VICTIM X D/O NOT MENTION NOT MENTION
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SATPAL CHADHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

following:
                                    ORDER

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 28.01.2023, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Burhanpur (M.P.) whereby first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. preferred by appellant/accused for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed.

Appellant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.02/2023

registered at Police Station- Mahila Police Station, District Burhanpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3- 1(r), 3-1(s), 3-2(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has knocked portal of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

A s per prosecution story, on 09.01.2023 at 5:49 PM complainant Shobha Verma lodged an FIR alleging that she is a teacher in government school. Her marriage was solemnized with Sachin Verma in the year 2010. Just after marriage, she along with her husband was residing separately. As offshoot of marriage, they had one daughter and one son. Her husband has died on 22.06.2022. After death of her husband, she had sent her both the children to

attend the last rites of her husband. Now her in-laws are not handing over the children to her. Two months ago, her daughter Gauranshi Verma came to live with her. It is further alleged that 09.01.2023 at around 2:40 PM when she had gone to collector office, her brother-in-law Pankaj met her and some altercation took place between them over the issue of handing over the custody of her son Granth Verma. Her brother-in-law Pankaj Verma abused her. When she asked him not to abuse, he stated that she belong to Bheel caste and by keeping both the children of his brother, she wanted to usurp the insurance claim of his deceased brother. It is further alleged that he stated that they don't even drink water from their hand and refused to hand over the custody of her son Granth Verma and threatened to do death. She informed the same to her brother and sister-in-law. FIR was registered.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is a government employee. He is posted at Jabalpur as constable. He has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that complainant is his real sister-in-law. His brother, the husband of the

complainant, committed suicide on 22.06.2022, leaving a suicide note making held allegations against the complainant about having illicit relations with some other person and also continuously torturing and harassing him due to which he committed suicide. On the basis of suicide note left by his deceased brother, complainant is facing trial for commission of offence under Section 306/34 of IPC. Complainant with an oblique notice of pressurizing him and other family members has lodged a false FIR as counter blast. It is further submitted that no case under the provision of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out, as complainant being sister-in-law is a family member. He never called her by the caste. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the judgment of the Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 (4) SCC 727 has contended that in a case where no offence under provisions of SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act is made out, anticipatory bail may be granted.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State referring provisions of Sections 18 and 18-A(2) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act has submitted that bar created under the aforesaid sections of the act prohibits the Court from granting anticipatory bail.

Undoubtedly the provision of Section 18 and 18-A(2) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail in an offence relating to SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act but at the same time it is also pious duty of the Court to

see whether an offence under provisions of SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act is really made out or not. In the case in hand it cannot be over looked that complainant is real sister-in-law of the appellant and she was married to deceased brother of the appellant almost 12 years ago in the year 2010 and were blessed with two siblings.

In this case, on perusal of record, it is revealed that complainant/wife is facing trial under Section 306 of IPC for instigating or abetting her husband to commit suicide. Complainant/wife and family members of the deceased husband are at loggerheads over the issue of the custody of the minor children of the deceased brother. In such circumstances, the possibility of implicating the complainant in a false case as a counter blast with an intention to pressurize him cannot be ruled out. In such a case where dispute is between family members, at this stage it can not be said with certainty that provision of SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act will get attracted. Hence, having taken into consideration the fact that appellant is a government employee and there is no possibility of his fleeing from justice. I deem it proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Consequently, appeal stands allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest appellant-Pankaj Verma be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority. At stage of filing of charge-sheet by police, appellant shall furnish fresh bail bond of same amount before committal Court/trial Court to its satisfaction.

I t is further directed that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required. He shall further abide by all the conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. In case he is not arrested by investigating officer, appellant himself shall surrender before Investigating Officer within 15 days from today and will join investigation.

However, it is being made clear that in case of bail jump and in violation of any of conditions, this order shall become ineffective.

C.C. as per rules.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE L.R.signed by Digitally LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2023.02.21 11:23:41 +05'30'