Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag Mehto vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11945
1 CRA-8035-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8035 of 2023
ANURAG MEHTO
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raunak Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - GA for the State.
Shri Surendra Patel- Advocate for the objector.
ORDER
Though the previous application for bail was decided by some other
Bench, however, the case is taken up for hearing in terms of the
Administrative order dated 13.2.2025, which has been issued in pursuance of
the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of 2025
(Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha Vs. Registrar General,
Jharkhand High Court).
2 . This is fourth criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section
14(A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of regular bail
relating to FIR/Crime No. 356/2022 dated 30.6.2022 registered at Police
Station Civil Lines, District Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under
Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v)
of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11945
2 CRA-8035-2023
and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that the appellant
had previously approached this Court and his third appeal for regular bail
filed vide Criminal Appeal No. 8035 of 2023 was allowed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.7.2023. The said order was assailed
by the prosecutrix before the Apex Court alleging inter alia that she was not
afforded any opportunity of being heard before passing of the order of grant
of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the Apex Court remitted back the
matter to this Court while setting aside the order dated 7.7.2023.
4 . It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that in the present
case the previous application of the appellant was allowed by the coordinate
Bench of this Court taking into consideration the fact that the DNA report of
the appellant was negative, the appellant was in custody since 30.6.2022 and
had already suffered incarceration of more than one year by the date of grant
of bail, allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant. Therefore, the
appellant deserves to be released on bail, inasmuch as the prosecutrix was
major and was aged about 28 years at the time of commission of the offence.
5. The counsel for the State has opposed the application and submitted
that previously the appellant was granted bail by this Court, which order was
assailed by the prosecutrix before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has
remitted back the matter for consideration of the objection of the prosecutrix.
6. It is submitted by the counsel for the objector that though the DNA
report is negative but the fact remains that other circumstances are also
required to be taken into consideration. It is contended that even the Supreme
Court has set aside the order of grant of bail to the appellant and had given
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11945
3 CRA-8035-2023
liberty to the High Court to issue necessary directions for arrest of the
appellant if the matter is not heard by the High Court within two weeks. It is
further contended that after remand, this case is pending and two weeks have
been elapsed but as on date, the appellant has not surrendered. The counsel
has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Veerendra Vs.
State of M.P. - 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480.
7. Heard submissions and perused the case diary.
8. On perusal of the record, it reveals that this Court while granting
bail to the appellant on previous occasion had taken into consideration the
factum that the appellant had already suffered incarceration of more than one
year by 7.7.2023. This Court had also taken into consideration the fact that
the DNA report of the appellant was negative. The Supreme Court in Para-8
of its order has observed that if the matter is not heard by the High Court
within two weeks, the High Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate
orders with regard to the surrender of the appellant. A perusal of the order-
sheets reflects that before this Court the matter was listed on 13.12.2024. On
the said date, the State was directed to effect service of notice upon the
victim. Thereafter on 8.1.2025 the counsel for the appellant was directed to
supply copy of the appeal along with enclosures to the counsel for the
objector. Then, on 20.1.2025, nobody appeared on behalf of the victim.
Hence the matter is taken up today.
9. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the fact that the appellant had already suffered incarceration of more than one
year by 7.7.2023 and his DNA report was also negative, this Court finds it to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11945
4 CRA-8035-2023
be a fit case to release the appellant on bail. Therefore, without commenting
on the merit of the case, the appeal is allowed.
10. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may
be fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of trial.
11 . It is further directed that the appellant shall comply with the
provisions of Section 480 (3) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
