Arjun Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6186 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arjun Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 2533 of 2024 (ARJUN PARMAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 29-02-2024 Shri Ajay Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri Ravi Kant Pandit -

Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Y.D. Yadav - Government Advocate for the State. Shri S.B. Shrivastava - Advocate for the Objector.

This is criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14-A

(1&2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of bail against order dated 15.02.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) (P.O.A.) Raisen (MP) passed in SC (ATR) No.25/2024.

2. Appellant has been arrested on 15.02.2024 in connection with FIR No.85/2023 registered at Police Station-Noorganj, District-Raisen, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506, 325, 326, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant has relied upon the

judgment passed by Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs.Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659. It is submitted by him that when charge sheet is not filed under certain Sections then Magistrate at the time of taking of cognizance cannot add or subtract offences. It is further submitted that as per said judgment of Apex Court, addition or subtraction of Sections can only be done at the stage of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also submitted that offence under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA)

Act is not made out against the appellant. Further offence under Section 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act provides for penalty as prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. No offence under Sections 325, 326 of the IPC is made out as no grievous injury has been caused by any dangerous weapon. Other offences are bailable in nature. Considering the circumstance, he prayed that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State as well as counsel appearing for the Objector opposed the bail application. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that case diary is not available and case diary will be required to consider the argument raised by the Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellant.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case appellant be released on ad-interim bail till the next date of hearing on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) by the appellant along with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned.

7. The appellant shall also abide by the following conditions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. as under:-

(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;

(b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected and;

(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. List the matter in week commencing 18.03.2024.

9. Meanwhile, case diary be made available by the next date of hearing.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

$A