THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-4346-2017

sh
(MANOJ KUMAR JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

e
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-11-2017

ad
Shri Rahul Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Pr
Shri S.P. Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the
a
respondent No.1/State.

hy

None present from the respondent No.2/complainant despite
ad

compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST
M

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1.
Case diary perused and arguments heard.

of

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of
rt

the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the
ou

order dated 10/10/17 passed by Special Sessions Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on bail application No.
C

853/2017 whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail
h

application filed by the appellants namely Manoj Kumar Jain
ig

and Jitendra Kumar Namdev, under Section 438 of the
H

Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No. 316/2017
registered at P.S. Jatara, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376, 506/34 of
I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) and 3(1)(da) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, who apprehend
their arrest in the crime.

[2] As per prosecution case, on 2/9/2017 prosecutrix
lodged a report at P.S. Jatara averring that on 9/8/2017 when
she was returning to her house co-accused Manish Kumar
Jain came along with two other person and forcibly took her
by a four wheeler to Jhansi and from Jhansi to Udaipur,

sh
where he kept her for one day and committed rape with her
and then took her to Rajkot, where he kept her for two days

e
ad
and also committed rape with her and then he took her to
Junagarh, where he kept her for 10-12 days and again

Pr
committed rape with her. After that, he took her back to
Tikamgarh and threatened her to kill, if she narrated the
a
hy

incident to anybody. In the FIR, only allegation against the
present appellants is that they threatened prosecutrix to kill
ad

her if she narrated the incident to anybody when she
M

returned back from Junagarh to Tikamgarh. On that report,
police registered Crime no.316/2017 for the offences
of

punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376, 506/34 of I.P.C.

rt

and also under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) and 3(1)(da) of SC/ST
ou

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the
matter. On that, appellants filed an application under Section
C

438 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail, which was
h
ig

rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act vide order dated 10/10/2017. Being aggrieved
H

by the impugned order, appellants filed this Criminal Appeal.
[3] Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in
this matter. Even otherwise, in the FIR only allegation
against the present appellants is that they threatened
prosecutrix to kill her if she narrated the incident to anybody
when she returned back from Junagarh to Tikamgarh, it is
not mentioned that they threatened her in public place. So,
from the FIR, no case under the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act is made out against the present appellants.

sh
Hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made

e
ad
by the appellants and submitted that the offence under the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out from the

Pr
evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation.
Therefore, they should not be released on bail.

a
hy

[5] Although, offence under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) and 3(1)(da)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, has been
ad

registered against the present applicants and according to
M

Section 18 of the Act provisions of Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to the persons
of

committing an offence under the Act, but in Pankaj D.

rt

Suthar V/s. State Of Gujarat reported in (1992) 1 GLR
ou

405 while considering the scope of Section 18 of the
Prevention of Atrocities Act, the Gujarat High Court observed
C

as under :-

h

“ Section
ig

18 of the Atrocities Act gives a vision,
direction and mandate to the Court as to the cases where the
H

anticipatory bail must be refused, but it does not and it
certainly cannot whisk away the right of any Court to have a
prima facie judicial scrutiny of the allegations made in the
complaint. Nor can it under its hunch permit provisions of
law being abused to suit the mala fide motivated ends of
some unscrupulous complainant.”
Apex Court also in the case of Vilas Pandurang and
another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported
in (2012) 8 SCC 795 held as under :-

“ The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with
Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar
in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is
registered against a person under the provisions of the

sh
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, no Court shall entertain
application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds

e
ad
that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while
considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of

Pr
evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not
expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on
a
record.”
hy

[6] This shows that in the crime registered for the offences
ad

under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it is
M

prima facie found that such an offence is not made out. In the
of

FIR, only allegation against the present appellants is that

when prosecutrix returned from Junagarh to Tikamgarh
rt
ou

alongwith other co-accused Mukesh, they threatened to kill
C

her if she narrated the incident to anybody. So looking to the
h

facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed
ig

without commenting on merits and it is directed that in the
H

event of arrest of appellants in in Crime No. 316/2017

registered at P.S. Jatara, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) the

present appellants be released on bail on their furnishing

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

[7] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of

the following conditions by the appellants :

sh

1. The appellants will comply with all the terms and

e
conditions of the bond executed by them;

ad

2. The appellants will co-operate in the
Pr
investigation/trial, as the case may be;

a

3. The appellants will not indulge themselves in
hy

extending inducement, threat or promise to any person
ad

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
M

him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
of

the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to
rt
ou

the offence of which they are accused;

5. The applicants will not seek unnecessary
C

adjournments during the trial; and
h
ig

6. The applicants will not leave India without previous
H

permission of the Trial Court/ Investigating Officer, as
the case may be.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned SHO for
compliance.

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE

e sh
ad
m/-

Digitally signed by Pr
a
MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2017.11.22
hy

03:06:35 -08’00’
ad
M
of
rt
ou
C
h
ig
H