THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-3417-2018
(BHAGWAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 15-05-2018
Shri Ashish Singh Bhadauria, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
None for the complainant.
sh
It has come on record that IO had not filed copy of the MLC in
respect of present appellant Bhagwan Singh before the trial Court so
e
ad
also before this High Court. On 14.5.2018 this Court specifically
asked the SHO to clarify whether MLC on the body of Bhagwan
Pr
Singh was carried out or not and then in response to such order, SHO
a
Indersingh Rathore of police Station, Hazira, Distt. Gwalior, has filed
hy
an affidavit dated 15.5.2018 in which it is mentioned that MLC of
ad
Bhagwan Singh was carried out and in para 4 it is mentioned that it
could not be produced alongwith the case diary at the relevant time for
M
which he be excused.
of
This is a serious lapse on the part of the IO in not producing the
MLC of the appellant who also sustained injuries during the same
rt
incident. This shows that IO is trying to take sides with the
ou
complainant party for the reasons best known to him, therefore, it is
C
directed that SSP, Gwalior, shall cause an inquiry into the conduct of
the IO and the SHO and bring on record such report within seven days
h
ig
through the Principal Registrar of this Court that why such lapse has
H
taken place and whether IO can be punished for such a serious lapse
because he was in all probability not acting fairly to the case of the
opposite party by not placing all the relevant documents in the case
diary. Let this report be filed by the SSP and also SP shall inform that
what action he proposes against the IO and SHO for such serious lapse
other than removing him from the post of IO in the present case
because prima facie he appears to be taking sides with the complainant
party for the reasons best known to him or to be discovered by the SSP
in the inquiry. It is clarified that disposal of this appeal will not
amount to exoneration of the SSP from discharging the duty as has
been entrusted to him above.
Heard on appeal.
It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the complainant
has been informed about the pendency of this appeal as required under
Section 15-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Case Diary is available.
This Criminal Appeal for grant of bail has been filed under
Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (in short Act, 1989) against the
sh
order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities),
e
Gwalior, whereby bail application filed by the appellant for grant of
ad
bail has been rejected.
Pr
The appellant has been arrested on 21.04.2018 in connection
with Crime No. 165/2018 registered at Police Station Hazira, District
a
Gwalior, for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 506, 323,
hy
452 of IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO
ad
Act.
M
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has
been falsely implicated in the matter. He is running a grocery shop.
of
Family of the prosecutrix was demanding goods on credit and when he
refused, then he has been involved in the case. There is growing
rt
tendency of falsely implicating the innocent persons in the grab of the
ou
provisions contained in the Act and appellant’s counsel submits that
C
this is one of those cases where for some or other personal enmity
h
innocent persons belonging to upper caste are being falsely framed
ig
under the provisions of the Act. The conduct of the IO in not enclosing
H
the MLC is a direct indication in support of the allegations made by
the appellant. It is further submitted that appellant has also sustained
three abrasions; one at right eyebrow, second at left femur and last at
right knee.
Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has opposed the
appeal.
In view of the facts discussed above and the conduct of the IO, it
appears that IO has not conducted the investigation fairly and
impartially. This is a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail. It is
directed that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith
two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given
by the concerned Court.
This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in
case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
The Principal Registrar of this Court shall ensure that SSP shall
produce the inquiry report within seven days to be placed before the
Court immediately and if SSP fails to comply with the directions, then
sh
separate M.Cr.C. be registered and file of present appeal be tagged
e
with such separate M.Cr.C.
ad
Certified copy as per rules.
Pr (VIVEK AGARWAL)
a
JUDGE
hy
ad
M
ms/-
of
Digitally signed by MADHU
rt
SOODAN PRASAD
Date: 2018.05.16 15:16:58 +05’30’
ou
C
h
ig
H
