Netram @ Haridas Shilpkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 November, 2017

CRA No. 1281/2017
Santosh Dhakad v. State of M.P. Anr.

CRA No. 1285/2017
Netram @ Haridas v. State of M.P. Anr.

Gwalior, Dated: 9/11/2017
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel, for appellant
Santosh of CRA No. 1281/2017.
Shri Jitendra Singh Kushwah, learned counsel, for
appellant Netram of CRA No. 1285/2017.
Shri Shiraz Quraishi, learned Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No. 1/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor has made an open-court
statement that the concerned police station had served
the notice in writing upon respondent No. 2/prosecutrix
regarding the filing and hearing of the appeals by the
appellants.
At the time of hearing of the appeals, neither
respondent No. 2 nor her counsel is found present before
this Court.
On due consideration, the documents filed on behalf
of appellant Netram vide the Document No. 9529/2017
are taken on record.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties
present, the appeals are heard finally at motion stage
and the following common order is passed:
ORDER

The appellants have filed the appeals under Section
14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the
Act”).

CRA No. 1281/2017
Santosh Dhakad v. State of M.P. Anr.

CRA No. 1285/2017
Netram @ Haridas v. State of M.P. Anr.

2. The short facts of the case for deciding the appeals
are that on 4/10/2016 the prosecutrix, who is
respondent No. 2 herein, lodged the FIR alleging that she
is a member of the Scheduled Caste. On 20/9/2016, she
was proceeding on foot from Vidisha city to her village
Kagpur having met her husband Ranveer Singh in District
Jail Vidisha. On the way, appellants namely Santosh
Dhakad and Netram @ Haridas and co-accused Satish
Yadav and Ramesh Meena with a Bolero jeep met her.
They told him that they are going to village Kagpur, and
they offered her lift. Thereupon, she got into the jeep.
Instead of the jeep being driven by the driver towards
her village Kagpur, the driver of the jeep took it into a
secluded place at Udaigiri Road despite her strong
protest. At that place about 6:00 PM, they forced her out
of the jeep, and thereafter appellants Santosh and
Netram committed rape upon her. When she cried in the
course of the said act, they gagged her mouth. She was,
later, hit on his head and as a result she went into
unconscious state. They left her at the place of
occurrence. Later, one unknown person made a call to
Dial 100. Thereupon, a police van took her from the
place of occurrence. As per record, the police of police
station Kotwali Vidisha had not initially registered the
report. After the intervention of the Superintendent of
Police Vidisha, the police registered the FIR on
CRA No. 1281/
2017
Santosh Dhakad v. State of M.P. Anr.

CRA No. 1285/2017
Netram @ Haridas v. State of M.P. Anr.

4/10/2016 against both the appellants and co-accused
Satish and Ramesh at Crime No. 738/2016 under
Sections 366, 376-B, 506 and 34 of the IPC and 3 (1)
(w-1) and 3 (2) (v) (va) of the Act.

3. Appellants Santosh and appellant Netram filed the
bail applications under
Section 439 of the CrPC before
the Special Judge (Atrocities) Vidisha. Their bail
applications were dismissed vide orders dated 8/9/2017
and 24/8/2017 respectively on the ground that they
committed the crime of very serious nature. Hence, the
appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the appellants are in custody since 12/8/2017 and that
the charge-sheet has not been filed as the co-accused
are absconding. They submit that the prosecutrix lodged
the report after a delay of near about 14 days for which
she has wrongly stated that the police Kotwali Vidisha
had refused to record her FIR on the date of incident.
They submit that appellant Netram married to Swati.
When Swati was unmarried, the prosecutrix’s husband
Ranveer Singh committed rape upon her. Upon the FIR of
Swati, the police of Police Station Nateran of Vidisha
district registered a case against Ranveer Singh at Crime
No. 283/2015 under
Sections 376, 342 and 506 IPC, 3
read with 4 of the POCSO Act and 3 (1) and 3 (2) (v) of
the Act. In that case, Ranveer Singh has been in jail.

CRA No. 1281/2017
Santosh Dhakad v. State of M.P. Anr.

CRA No. 1285/2017
Netram @ Haridas v. State of M.P. Anr.

They submit that the prosecutrix would pressurize
appellant Netram and his wife Swati not to record
evidence against her husband Ranveer Singh in that case
in the court concerned. Upon their refusal, the
prosecutrix lodged the false report at the behest of her
husband Ranveer Singh in the present case. They submit
that the medical report of the prosecutrix does not
support her version of being raped. They submit that the
appellants have no criminal antecedents and they are the
permanent residents of Vidisha district. They submit
that since the two co-accused persons of the case are
absconding, therefore, trial will take long time to
conclude. Upon these submissions, they pray to grant
bail to the appellants by allowing the appeals and setting
aside the impugned orders.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
acceptance of the appeals. However, he concedes that as
per the case diary the appellants have no criminal
antecedents.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on
behalf of the parties by their counsel and upon the
perusal of the FIR of said crime number 283/2015 and
the other documents on record, but without commenting
on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail. Consequently,
CRA No. 1281/
2017
Santosh Dhakad v. State of M.P. Anr.

CRA No. 1285/2017
Netram @ Haridas v. State of M.P. Anr.

I allow their appeals setting aside the impugned orders
of rejection for grant of bail. Learned Special Judge
(Atrocities) Vidisha is directed to release appellants
Santosh Dhakad and Netram @ Haridas on bail upon
each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety
of the same amount to his satisfaction for securing their
presence in the course of trial of the case. The appellants
shall abide by all the conditions enumerated in
Section
437 (3) of the
CrPC. In case of bail jump, the concerned
Court will have power to cancel the appellants’ bail.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Mahajan)
Judge
AKS

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *