SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manish Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-2026-2018
(MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. ANR.)
1

JABALPUR Dated : 28.03.2018

Shri Sunil Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri V.S. Mishra, learned Dy GA for the

respondent/State.

None present from the respondent No.2/complainant

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

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1.

Case diary perused and arguments heard.

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-

A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against

the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by Special Sessions Judge,

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on bail application

No.85/2018 whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail

application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of the

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 his arrest in

the crime.

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 Mukesh Jain came along with

two other persons and forcibly took her by a four wheeler to

Jhansi and from Jhansi to Udaipur, where he kept her for one
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-2026-2018
(MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. ANR.)
2

day and committed rape with her and then took her to Rajkot,

where he kept her for two days and also committed rape with

her and then he took her to Junagarh, where he kept her for 10-

12 days and again committed rape with her. After that, he took

her back to Tikamgarh and threatened her to kill, if she narrated

the incident to anybody. It is alleged that when prosecutrix

returned back from Junagarh to Tikamgarh appellant-Manish

also threatened her to kill and also abused her regarding cast on

phone. Regarding incident, police registered Crime

No.316/2017 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 and

investigated the matter. On that, the appellant filed an

application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing him

on bail, which was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 10.10.2017.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this

Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

matter. It is also submitted that in the case diary statement of the

prosecutrix recorded by the police on 02.09.2017, it is not

mentioned that the appellant also threatened the prosecutrix and

abused her regarding cast. Prosecutrix for the first time in her

statement, recorded by JMFC under Section 164 of CrPC, stated
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-2026-2018
(MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. ANR.)
3

that appellant-Manish also threatened her and abused her on

phone regarding caste. From that statement also, it does not

appear that appellant gave abuse to prosecutrix in a public view,

so from the statement of the prosecutrix, no case under the

SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant, hence, counsel

prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made

by the appellant and submitted that the offence under the SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out from the evidence

collected by the prosecution during investigation. Therefore, he

should not be released on bail.

Although, offence under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) and 3(1)

(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, has been

registered against the present appellant and according to Section

18 of the Act provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal

Procedure Code does not apply to the persons committing an

offence under the Act, but in Pankaj D. Suthar V/s. State Of

Gujarat reported in (1992) 1 GLR 405 while considering the

scope of Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the

Gujarat High Court observed as under :-

“Section 18 of the Atrocities Act gives a vision,
direction and mandate to the Court as to the cases
where the 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
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-2026-2018
(MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. ANR.)
4

abused to suit the mala fide motivated ends of some
unscrupulous complainant.”

The 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 SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, no Court shall
entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless
it prima facie finds that such an offence is not
made out. Moreover, while considering the
application for bail, scope for appreciation of
evidence and other material on record is limited.
Court is not expected to indulge in critical
analysis of the evidence on record.”

This shows that in the crime registered for the offences

under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it is

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

case diary statement of the prosecutrix, there is no allegation

against the present appellant that he threatened her to kill and

abused her. Although in the statement of prosecutrix recorded

by JMFC under Section 164 of CrPC, it is mentioned that

appellant abused her regarding her caste on phone. But from

that statement also prima facie it does not appear that the

appellant Manish abused her regarding caste in a public view.

So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal

is allowed without commenting on merits and it is directed that
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-2026-2018
(MANISH JAIN VS. THE STATE OF M.P. ANR.)
5

in the event of arrest of appellant in Crime No. 316/2017

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

appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in

the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with

one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the

arresting officer.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of

the following conditions by the appellant:

1.The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions
of the bond executed by them;

2.The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the
case may be;

3.The appellant will not indulge himself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case
may be;

4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused;

5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments
during the trial; and

6. The appellant will not leave India without previous
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.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
anand/m
Digitally signed by ANAND
KRISHNA SEN
Date: 2018.04.02 02:59:12

-07’00’

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation