Vicky Arya Alias Vikram Arya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 366 MP

                                                                     1
                                      IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                          AT JABALPUR
                                                                BEFORE
                                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                        ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11117 of 2022

                                     BETWEEN:-
                                     1.    VICKY ARYA ALIAS VIKRAM ARYA S/O DILIP
                                           ARYA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, VILLAGE ROJHDA
                                           TEHSIL CHICHOLI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
                                           PRADESH)

                                     2.    DILIP ARYA S/O SANKATA ARYA, AGED ABOUT 60
                                           YEAR S , VILLAGE ROJHDA TEHSIL CHICHOLI
                                           DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     3.    PRAMILA ARYA W/O DILIP ARYA, AGED ABOUT 51
                                           YEAR S , VILLAGE ROJHDA TEHSIL CHICHOLI
                                           DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....APPELLANTS
                                     (BY SHRI ABHIJIT AWASTHY - ADVOCATE )

                                     AND
                                     1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                           POLICE STATION CHICHOLI DISTRICT BETUL
                                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     2.    GYANCHAND S/O GOLIYA KACHAHE GRAM
                                           ROGHDA THANA CHICHOLI, TEHSIL CHICHOLI,
                                           DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI NARENDRA CHOURASIYA - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

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

Signature Not Verified
  SAN                                                                 ORDER
Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT

T he appellants have filed this criminal appeal under Section 14-A of Date: 2023.01.09 12:51:09 IST

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 16.11.2022 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Betul whereby application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants seeks withdrawal of this application so far as appellant No.2 Dilip Arya is concerned. However, he fairly submits that appellant No.2 shall submit himself before the course of justice and seek regular bail in accordance with law. He pressed for hearing this application so far as appellant No.2 Vicky Arya @ Vikram Arya and appellant No.3 Pramila

Arya is concerned.

Appellants No.1 and 3 apprehend their arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(Dha), 3(2) (Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered vide Crime No.558/2022 at Police Station Chicholi, District Betul (M.P.).

I t is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are apprehending their arrest on the basis of registration of offence referred above. It is submission of learned counsel for the appellants that both the appellants did not hurl any verbal abuse and made any caste related aspersions to the complainant and they are being falsely implicated. Matter primarily pertains to boundary dispute because the complainant intended to construct house over land which according to appellants belong to them. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan Signature Not Verified SAN

Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727, Union of India Vs. State Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2023.01.09 12:51:09 IST

of Maharashtra and others (2020) 4 SCC 761 as well as the judgment passed

by this Court in the matter of Atendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of M.P., 2019 (2) MPLJ (Cri) 481, in support of his submission and submits that no offence prima-facie is made out so far as Atrocities Act are concerned. Injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. Confinement would bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience. They undertake to cooperate in investigation/trial and would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant party in any manner. Under these circumstances, he prayed for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

Considering the submissions and nature of the allegation as well as fact situation, the appeal U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. so far as appellant No.2 Dilip Arya is concerned, the same stands dismissed. However, this Court is inclined to allow this criminal appeal for grant of anticipatory bail to appellant No.1 Vicky Arya @ Vikram Arya and appellant No.3 Pramila Arya. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the appellants No.1 and appellant No.3 shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety of the like

amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellants:-

Signature Not Verified SAN

1. The appellants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the

Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT bond executed by them.

Date: 2023.01.09 12:51:09 IST

2. The appellants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3 . The appellants will not indulge themselves 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 appellants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

5. The appellants shall not be a source of embarassment and harassment to the complainant party in any manner and shall not move in their vicinity.

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

Criminal appeal stands allowed and disposed of so far as it relates to appellant No.1 Vicky Arya @ Vikram Arya and appellant No.3 Pramila Arya.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. Certified copy as per rules/directions.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE a

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2023.01.09 12:51:09 IST