SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Omprakash Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2018

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

CRA-5100/18
(Omprakash vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another)

20-08-2018
Jabalpur, Dated :
Shri B.K. Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Arvind Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent no.1/State.

None present for 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
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated
26/08/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Bhopal, in ST No.44/18; whereby learned Special
Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant, under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.106/2018 registered
at P.S. Najirabad, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable
under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and also section 3(I)(w)(I),
3(2)(5), 3(2)(5a) of SC/ST Act and also section ¾ of PACSO Act

As per prosecution case, on 5.05.2018 applicant abducted
the prosecutrix who was minor at the time of incident and took her
to village Shivnateran where he kept her and committed rape with
her. On that, police registered Crime no.106/2018 registered at P.S.
Najirabad, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and also Section 3(I)(w)(I), 3(2)(5),
3(2) (5a) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section ¾ of
the POSCO Act and investigated the matter. During investigation
on 16/5/2018 police arrested the appellant. On that, the appellant
filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him
on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 26.08.2018. Being
aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal
Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The
statements of the prosecutrix and her mother have been recorded by
the trial Court. They did not support the prosecution story and the
appellant is in custody since 16.05.2018 and conclusion of trial
will take considerable time. So appellant be released on bail.

On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposed the
prayer and submitted that the appellant abducted the minor girl and
made sexual relation with her, so he should not be released on bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the
statement of prosecutrix and her mother recorded by the trial Court
and as to the fact that the appellant is in custody since 16.05.2018
and conclusion of trial will take time, so without commenting on
merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant
Omprakash Pal be released on bail on his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial
Court.

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 him.

2. The appellant will cooperate in the trial;

3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case
so as to dissuade him 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 he is 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.

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

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.

Certified copy as per rule.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE

Digitally signed by
MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE
Date: 2018.08.23 15:21:28
+05’30’
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

CRA-4800-2018
(VICKY @ RAJA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

24-07-2018
Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri Rahul Diwarkar, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Manish Soni, Govt. Adv.for the respondent no.1/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 of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated
4/5/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Chhindwara, in B.A.No.1005/2018; whereby
learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the
appellant, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime
No.111/2018 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, District
Chhindwara (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections
341, 394 of IPC and also Section 3(2)(v)(a) of ST/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

As per prosecution case, on 23/2/2018 at about 8.30 p.m. when
complainant went to Gulabra on the way, when she reached at
street no.14 applicant and co-accused came on bike and looted
one mobile from the complainant and ran away. On that, police
registered Crime no.111/2018 registered at P.S. City Kotwali,
District Chhindwara (M.P.) for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 394 of IPC and also Section 3(2)(v)(a) of ST/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and investigated the matter.
During investigation on 27/2/2018 police arrested the
applicant and after investigation charge-sheet was filed, on
which Special S.T.No.62/2018 was registered. During trial of
the case, appellant filed an application under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
vide order dated 4/5/2018. Being aggrieved by the impugned
order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has
falsely been implicated in this matter. The appellant has no
criminal past. Charge-sheet has been filed and the appellant is
in custody since 27/2/2018 and conclusion of trial will take
considerable time. So applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and
submitted that the appellant looted the mobile from the
possession of the complainant and the mobile has been seized
by the police from the possession of the appellant and the
complainant also identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade. So
he should not be released on bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to
the fact that the appellant has no criminal past, he is in custody
since 27/2/2018 and the charge-sheet has been filed and
conclusion of trial will take time, so without commenting on
merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be
released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

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 him;

2. The appellant will cooperate in the trial;

3.The appellant will not indulge himself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the fact of the case so as to dissuade him 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 he is 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.

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

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)

JUDGE

m/-

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

CRA-4905-2018
(JODHARAM TANWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

24-07-2018
Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri R.S. Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Arvind Singh, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/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) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order
dated 27/6/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, in Spl.Case no.SC48/2018; whereby learned
Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellants
Jodharam Tanwar, Sunil Tanwar and Braj Tanwar, under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.81/2018
registered at P.S. Najeerabad, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) for the
offences punishable under Section 294, 323 and 506-B/34 of
I.P.C.and also under Section 3(1)(r(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

As per prosecution case, on 5/4/2018 at about 10 p.m.,
appellants abused complainant Chhitarlal and when
complainant denied, the appellants also assaulted him by stick
and also threatened to kill him. On the incident, the
complainant sustained injury on his head. On the report of the
complainant, police registered Crime no.81/2018 registered at
P.S. Najeerabad, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences
punishable under Section 294, 323 and 506-B/34 of I.P.C.and
also under Section 3(1)(r(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the
matter. During investigation on 12/6/2018 police arrested the
appellants. On that, appellants filed an application under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail, which was
rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act vide order dated 19/12/2017. Being aggrieved
by the impugned order, appellants filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants
are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this matter.
The appellants are in custody since 12/6/2018. Charge sheet
has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so
appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to
the fact that the appellants are in custody since 12/6/2018,
charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take
time, so without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed.
It is directed that appellants namely Jodharam Tanwar, Sunil
Tanwar and Braj Tanwar 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 in the like
amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the appellants :

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

2. The appellants will cooperate in the trial;

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

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

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

6. The appellants will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court.

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

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)

JUDGE

m/-

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

CRA-4920-2018
(RAJA BHAIYA KURMI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

23-07-2018
Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri S.K. Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Akhilendra Singh, Govt. Advocate for the respondent
no.1-State.

None present from the respondent Nos.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 first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order
dated 5/6/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, in A.No.15307/2018; whereby learned Special
Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant, under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.49/2017
registered at P.S. Majhgawan, District Jabalpur, (M.P.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. and
3(2)(5) and 3(2)(5ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989 and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. Earlier, the appellant
filed the applications which were dismissed as withdrawn vide
orders dated 13/11/2017 11/5/2018 passed in
Cr.A.No.3379/17 and Cr.A.No.2935/2018 respectively.

As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 22-
23/2/2017 appellant abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor
at the time of incident, and took her to Sihora, Katni, Singrauli
then Satna, where he kept her and made sexual relation with
her. On that report, police registered the Crime No. Crime
No.49/2017 registered at P.S. Majhgawan, District Jabalpur,
(M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366,
376 of I.P.C. r/w Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section
3(2)(v) and 3(2)(5) and 3(2)(5ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and
investigated the matter in which appellant was arrested on
8/4/2017. On that, appellant filed an application under Section
439 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 5/6/2018. Being aggrieved by the
impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in this matter. The prosecutrix
was major at the time of incident and went with the appellant
on her own will. The appellant is in custody since 8/4/2017, so
appellant be released on bail.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent
no.1/State opposed the prayer and submitted that in the school
admission register, date of birth of the prosecutrix is
mentioned as 6/7/2000 and the appellant abducted the minor
girl and made sexual relation with her, so he should not be
released on bail.

Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and
as to the fact that the appellant abducted minor girl and
committed rape with her, so this Court is not inclined to grant
bail. Hence appeal is dismissed.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)

JUDGE

m/-

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3761-2018
(BHUKUL @ MUKUL YADAV @ ROHANI PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 04-07-2018
Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Arvind Singh, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State.
None present from the respondent Nos.2 and 3/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 first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order
dated 10/5/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.24/2018; whereby learned
Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant
Bhukul @ Mukul Yadav @ Rohani Prasad, under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.39/2018 registered at P.S.
Burhar, District Shahdol, (M.P.) for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 307 of I.P.C. r/w Section
25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(5 ka) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Earlier, the
appellant filed the applications which were dismissed as
withdrawn vide orders dated 28/2/2018 4/5/2018 passed in
MCrC Nos.5979/2018 and 16284/2018 respectively.
As per prosecution case on 17/01/2018 at 2:00 PM appellant
and
co-accused persons namely Laltesh Yadav, Lalan Kewat,
Daddu Baiga,
Minda Yadav, Bablu Kewat and Lallu Kewat went to the the
Hotel of
Jhurru Kewat situated at village Jarwahi armed with stick,
sword and
knife and abused the complainant Ajay Yadav and his friends
Manoj
Raidas Ramchandra. Thereafter, co-accused Minda Yadav
inflicted
knife blow on the stomach of Ramchandra and co-accused
Lalan Kewat
also assaulted Manoj Choudhary by means of sword, who
sustained
injury in his right hand. It is alleged that the applicants
Lalitesh Yadav
and Daddu Baiga also assaulted them by stick. On that report,
police
registered Crime No.39/2018 registered at P.S. Burhar, District
Shahdol,
(M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
294, 323,
307 of I.P.C. r/w Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section
3(2)(v)
and 3(2)(5 ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
and
investigated the matter. During investigation on 18/1/2018
police
1 CRA-3761-2018
arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed application under
Section
439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by
the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Shahdol
vide order dated 10/05/2018. Being aggrieved from that order
appellant
has preferred this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has
falsely been implicated in this matter. Otherwise also
according to the
prosecution story co-accused Minda Yadav caused grievous
injury to
Ramchandra by knife. The appellant is in custody since
18/01/2018 and
conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence prayed for
release of
the applicant on bail.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State
opposed
the prayer and submitted that sufficient material is available
against the
applicant to connect him with the offence.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to
the fact
that the appellant is in custody since 18/1/2018, charge sheet
has been
filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so without
commenting on
merit, the appeal is allowed.

It is directed that the 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 in the like amount to the satisfaction of
trial
Court.

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 him;

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 fact of the
case so as
to dissuade him 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 he is 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.
2 CRA-3761-2018
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for
compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

m/-

3 CRA-3761-2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

CRA-6374-2017
(MANISH JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

8
01-02-2018
Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Y.D. Yadav, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri A.M. Lal, Advocate for the respondent no.2/Complainant.

Complainant is also present in person.

Case diary perused and arguments heard.

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated
19/12/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.419/2017; whereby learned Special
Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Manish Jain,
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.564/2017
registered at P.S. Garha, District Jabalpur, (M.P.) for the offences
punishable under Section 376 (2)(N) of I.P.C.and also under
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

[2] As per prosecution case, on 12/8/2017 prosecutrix lodged a
report at P.S. Garha averring that appellant for the first time made
sexual relation with her in the year 2007 on the pretext of marriage.
Thereafter, he used to make sexual relation on the pretext of
marriage. Thereafter, he denied to marry with her. On that report,
police registered Crime no.564/2017 for the offence punishable
under Section 376 (2)(N) of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the
matter. During investigation on 12/12/2017 police arrested the
appellant. On that appellant filed an application under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide
order dated 19/12/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order,
appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant
has falsely been implicated in this matter. In the FIR, it is
mentioned that for the first time appellant made sexual relation
with the prosecutrix in the year 2007, while prosecutrix lodged the
report on 12/9/2017, after ten years of the incident. The appellant is
in custody since 12/12/2017. Charge sheet has been filed and
conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released on bail.

[4] Learned counsel for the State as well as Objector opposed
the prayer and submitted that the appellant sexually exploited the
prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. So, he should not be
released on bail.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as
to the fact that the appellant is in custody since 12/12/2017, charge
sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so
without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed.

[6] It is directed that the 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 in the like amount to the
satisfaction of trial Court.

[7] 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 him;

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 fact of the case so as to dissuade him 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 he is 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 Court concerned for
compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)

JUDGE

m/-

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-6374-2017
(MANISH JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

8
01-02-2018
Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri A.M. Lal, Advocate for the respondent no.2/Complainant.
Complainant is also present in person.

Case diary perused and arguments heard.

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated
19/12/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.419/2017; whereby learned Special
Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Manish Jain,
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.564/2017
registered at P.S. Garha, District Jabalpur, (M.P.) for the offences
punishable under Section 376 (2)(N) of I.P.C.and also under
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

[2] As per prosecution case, on 12/8/2017 prosecutrix lodged a
report at P.S. Garha averring that appellant for the first time made
sexual relation with her in the year 2007 on the pretext of marriage.
Thereafter, he used to make sexual relation on the pretext of
marriage. Thereafter, he denied to marry with her. On that report,
police registered Crime no.564/2017 for the offence punishable
under Section 376 (2)(N) of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the
matter. During investigation on 12/12/2017 police arrested the
appellant. On that appellant filed an application under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide
order dated 19/12/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order,
appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant
has falsely been implicated in this matter. In the FIR, it is
mentioned that for the first time appellant made sexual relation
with the prosecutrix in the year 2007, while prosecutrix lodged the
report on 12/9/2017, after ten years of the incident. The appellant is
in custody since 12/12/2017. Charge sheet has been filed and
conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released on bail.

[4] Learned counsel for the State as well as Objector opposed
the prayer and submitted that the appellant sexually exploited the
prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. So, he should not be
released on bail.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as
to the fact that the appellant is in custody since 12/12/2017, charge
sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so
without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed.

[6] It is directed that the 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 in the like amount to the
satisfaction of trial Court.

[7] 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 him;

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 fact of the case so as to dissuade him 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 he is 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 Court concerned for
compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-

CRA-6243-2017
(GOVINDSINGH SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

10-01-2018
Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/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) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated
13/12/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.794/2017; whereby learned Special
Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Govind Singh
Sahu, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime
No.794/2017 registered at P.S. Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur,
(M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 376 (2)

(n) of I.P.C.and also under Sections 3(1)(w-i), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
[2] As per prosecution case, on 2/12/2017 prosecutrix lodged a
report at P.S. Gotegaon averring that on 1/12/2017 at 2.30 p.m., the
appellant abducted the prosecutrix and took her to forest near
Paramhansi temple where he committed intercourse with her on the
pretext of marriage. On that report, police registered Crime
no.794/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376,
376 (2)(n) of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (1)(w-i), 3(2)(va) and
3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and
investigated the matter. During investigation on 3/12/2017 police
arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed an application under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was
rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act vide order dated 13/12/2017. Being aggrieved by
the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.
[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant
has falsely been implicated in this matter and the prosecutrix was
major and went with the appellant on her own will and the
consenting party. Prosecutrix in her statement, recorded by JMFC
under Section 164 of the CrPC, stated that the appellant did not
comit rape with her. The appellant is in custody since 3/12/2017, so
appellant be released on bail.

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by
the appellant.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and
statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the JMFC under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. and as to the fact that appellant is in custody
since 3/12/2017 and conclusion of trial will take time, without
commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed.
[6] It is directed that the 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 in the like amount to the
satisfaction of trial Court.

[7] 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 him;

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 fact of the case so as to dissuade him 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 he is 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 Court concerned for
compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-

Cr.Appeal No.4354/17
Jabalpur dated, 21/11/2017
Shri Rahul Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the

appellant.

Shri S.P. Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent No.1/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 (2)

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

dated 10/10/2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in M.Cr.C. No.876/2017;

whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application

filed by the appellant Mukesh Kumar Jain, under Section 439

of Cr.P.C. to get 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.

[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 return to her house, on the way, the appellant forcibly

took her by a four wheeler to Jhansi and from Jhansi to

Udaipur, where he kept the prosecutrix for one 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 the prosecutrix for

10-12 days wherein he also committed rape. After that, he took
her back to Tikamgarh. On that report, 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. During investigation on 27/9/2017

police arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed an

application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on

bail, which was rejected by the learned 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.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter and the

prosecutrix was major and went with the appellant on her own

will and the consenting party. The appellant is in custody since

10/10/2017, so appellant be released on bail.

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer

made by the appellant.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case

and as to the fact that appellant is in custody since 10/10/2017

and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on

merit, the appeal is allowed.

[6] It is directed that the 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 in the like

amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

[7] 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 him;

2. The appellant will cooperate in
theinvestigation/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 fact of the case so as to
dissuade him 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 he is 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 Court concerned
for compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-

CRA No.3624/2017
Jabalpur, dated 27/11/2017

Shri D.K. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri B.P. Pandey, Govt. Adv. for the respondent no.1/State.

Respondent No.2/complainant present in person.

Case diary perused and arguments heard.

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

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

17/8/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, in Case No.SC.ATR./200010/2017; whereby

learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by

appellant Anar Singh, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in

Crime No.695/2016 registered at P.S. G.R.P. Bhopal (M.P.) for the

offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 368, 376-D (2)

(N), 120-B, 370 and 370-K of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (1)

(Y)(W)(II), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989

and also under Section 5/6 and 9 of Human Trafficking Act.

[2] As per prosecution, on 6/11/16 the prosecutrix, a married

lady, aged about 30 years, lodged a report at Police Station GRP,

Bhopal that she had come to Bhopal with her son, Sachin from

Betul by train 3 months ago. At railway station Bhopal, she met
with co-accuased Anil @ Rahul @ Laddu, who offered her for job

and then she went to the residence of Anil. At his residence, Anil

committed rape with her. Thereafter, Anil and Rahees @ Rajkumar

took her to house of present appellant Anar Singh, but her son was

kept by the wife of Anil namely, Kavya. At the residence of the

appellant, he and co-accused Rajaram committed rape with her and

stated that they had purchased her from Anil for Rs.25,000/-. After

three-four days, they sold prosecutrix to Raju Gadli for Rs.50000/-

and he kept her as his wife for approximately one month and

committed rape with her. When prosecutrix asked him to meet her

son, Raju Gadli asked her to tell the appellant to return his money

only then he would leave her. When she threatened to lodge a

report then, appellant came and took her to Binaganj and where he

handed over her to co-accused Dev Singh, Rambabu, Dhirav and

Kishan. Thereafter, co-accused Dev Singh took her to a forest by

motorcycle and committed rape with her. Then, co-accused Dev

Singh, Rambabu, Dhirav and Kishan took her to Hinauti village

and where they kept prosecutrix in the house of Pratap for 15 days.

Thereafter, they kept her at village Talabadi and Khamkheda for 15

each.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. It

is further submitted that Police has made total 8 accused in this

case and the other co-accused persons Mohan and Dev Singh have

been released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide

orders dated 1/8/2017 and 1/6/2017 passed in Cr.A.Nos.2537/2017

and 959/2017 respectively. The appellant is in custody since

18/11/2016. So, appellant be released on bail.

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by

the appellant.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to

the fact that co-accused have already granted bail by the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court. Appellant is in custody since

18/11/2016 and conclusion of trial will take time, without

commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed.

[6] It is directed that the 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 in the like amount to the

satisfaction of trial Court.

[7] 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 him;

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

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

9. The appellant shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is
accused;

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

11. 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 Court concerned for

compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-

Criminal Appeal No.2131/17
17/7/2017
Shri Guljar Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/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 of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated
7/4/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Narsinghpur, in special Case No.44/2017; whereby
learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the
appellant Kedar Rajput, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in
Crime No.15/2016 registered at P.S. Saikheda, District
Narsinghpur, M.P. for the offences punishable under Sections 376,
354, 354(B), 294, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii),
3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v), of ST/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

[2] As per prosecution case, on 20/1/2017 prosecutrix lodged a
report averring that on 31/12/2016 at about 2 a.m. when she was
sleeping in her house situated at Village Udni P.S. Saikheda, the
applicant came to her house and committed rape with her.
Thereafter, on 19/1/2017 at about 2 p.m., the applicant again came
to her house and abused her and also used criminal force on her to
outrage her modesty. On that report, police registered Crime
no.15/2017 at police station Saikheda for the offence punishable
under Sections 376, 354, 354(B), 294, 506 of IPC and under
Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v), of ST/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act and investigated the matter. During investigation
on 15/3/17 police arrested the applicant and after investigation
charge-sheet was filed, on which Special Case No.44/2017 was
registered. During trial of the case, appellant filed an application
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was
rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act vide order dated 7/4/2017. Being aggrieved by the
impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant
has falsely been implicated in this matter. Prosecutrix was major. It
is alleged that applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix on
31/12/2016 while prosecutrix lodged the report on 20/1/2017.There
is no appropriate explanation regarding the delay in FIR. The
applicant is in custody since 15/3/2017. Charge-sheet has been
filed and conclusion of trial will take considerable time. So
applicant be released on bail

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by
the appellant.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to
the fact that appellant is in custody since 15/3/2017, and that
Charge-sheet has been filled and conclusion of trial will take time,
without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed
that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

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 him;

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 fact of the case so as to dissuade him 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 he is 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 Court concerned for

compliance.

Accordingly, Cr. A. No. 2131/2017 is disposed of.
C.C.as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)

JUDGE
m/-

Cr.Appeal No.2239/17
25-07-2017

Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Pawan Gujjar,

learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Vijay Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent

No.1/State.

Shri S.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent

no.2/complainant.

Complainant is present in person.

Case diary perused and arguments heard.

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

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

dated 27/5/2017 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge for

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Special

Case No.31/2017; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the

bail application filed by the appellant Raju @ Ramprakash,

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail in Crime No.341/13

registered at P.S. Amla, District Betul, (M.P.) for the offences
punishable under Sections 342, 376(2) and 506 of I.P.C. and

also under Sections 3 (2) (v) read with 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and also under Section ¾

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

[2] As per prosecution case, on 26/9/2013 at about 8 p.m.

when the prosecutrix was going to attend the call of nature

near her house situated at village Jammwada, the appellant

met her on the way. He caught hold of her and took her to a

room built at Tejlal Sahu’s farm used for fastening bulls and

committed rape with her there and also threatened to kill her.

At about 12 a.m. the prosecutrix’s father Ramdas and mother

Sugarti Bai came there and on seeing them appellant fled

away. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to them.They took her

to P.S. Amla, Distt. Betul where she lodged the report. On that

report, police registered Crime no.341/13 for the offences

punishable under Sections 342, 376(2) (Jha) and 506 of I.P.C.

and also under Sections 3 (2) (v) read with 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the
matter. During investigation Police did not get the accused. So

after investigation police filed the charge sheet in the absence

of the appellant. On that, charge sheet, Special Case No. 31/17

was registered. Police arrested the appellant on 6/5/2017 and

produced before the court. Learned Court sent him to judicial

custody. On that appellant filed an application under Section

439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail, which was rejected by the learned

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order

dated 27/5/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order,

appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. Appellant

is in custody since 6/5/2017, the charge sheet has been filed

and conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released

on bail.

[4] Respondent No.2 and her counsel submitted that they

have no objection on appellant being granted bail .
[5] Learned counsel for the State/Respondent No.1 opposed

the prayer and submitted that In the marksheet the date of birth

of prosecutrix is mentioned as 08/10/98 which shows that

prosecutrix was only 15 years of age when the appellant

committed rape with her and appellant remained absconded

for a long period, So he shall not be released on bail.

[6] Looking to the allegations levelled against the appellant

that he committed rape of minor girl of 15 years and remained

absconding for a long time after incident. Besides the

possibility of tampering with the evidence by the accused if

released on bail at this stage also can not be ruled out.So in

the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not

commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant

for releasing him on bail at this stage. So his appeal is rejected

with the liberty that after recording the statement of the

prosecutrix, the appellant is free to again file fresh bail

application.

Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 2239/2017 is disposed of.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-

Cr.Appeal No.2384/17
24-07-2017
Shri Purshottam Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent No.1/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 (2)

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

dated 05.06.2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in M.Cr.C. No.453/2017;

whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application

filed by the appellant Suresh Patel, under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.87/2017 registered at P.S.

Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh, (M.P.) for the offences

punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. and also

under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act 1989.

[2] As per prosecution case, on 18.03.2017 appellant

abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of

incident, and took her to Orchha and from Orchha to village

Kochha Bhawar, Distt. Jhansi, where he kept the prosecutrix

till 28/5/2017 and committed rape. On that report, police

registered Crime no.87/2017 for the offences punishable under

Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. And Sections 3 (2) (5-A)

of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated

the matter. During investigation on 30.06.2017 police arrested

the appellant. On that appellant filed an application under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was

rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act vide order dated 5/6/2017. Being aggrieved by

the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. The

prosecutrix was major and she went with the appellant on her

own will and he also filed the Adhar Card of the prosecutrix in

support of his application, in which her age is mentioned as 20

years. The appellant is in custody since 30.06.2017, so

appellant be released on bail.

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer

made by the appellant.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case

and statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the JMFC under

Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and as to the fact that appellant is in

custody since 30.06.2017, the charge sheet has been filed and

conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on

merit, the appeal is allowed.

[6] It is directed that the 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 in the like

amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

[7] This order will remain operative subject to

compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :

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

13. The appellant will cooperate in
theinvestigation/trial, as the case may be;

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

15. The appellant shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is accused;

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

17. 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 Court concerned
for compliance.

Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 11174/2017 is disposed of.

CC as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-

Cr.Appeal No.2384/17
24-07-2017
Shri Purshottam Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent No.1/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 (2)

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

dated 05.06.2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in M.Cr.C. No.453/2017;

whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application

filed by the appellant Mukesh Kumar Jain, under Section 439

of Cr.P.C. to get 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.

[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 return to her house, on the way, the appellant forcibly

took her by a four wheeler to Jhansi and from Jhansi to

Udaipur, where he kept the prosecutrix for one day and

committed rape and then took her to Rajkot, where he kept her

for two days and also committed rape and then he took her to

Gujrat where he kept the prosecutrix for 10-12 days wherein

he also committed rape. After that, he took her back to

Tikamgarh. On that report, 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. During investigation on 27/9/2017

police arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed an

application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on

bail, which was rejected by the learned 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.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter and the

prosecutrix is a major and consenting party. The appellant is

in custody since 10/10/2017, so appellant be released on bail.

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer

made by the appellant.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case

and as to the fact that appellant is in custody since 10/10/2017

and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on

merit, the appeal is allowed.

[6] It is directed that the 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 in the like

amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

[7] This order will remain operative subject to

compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :

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

19. The appellant will cooperate in
theinvestigation/trial, as the case may be;

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

21. The appellant shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is accused;

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

23. 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 Court concerned
for compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-

Criminal Appeal No.2131/17
17/7/2017
Shri Guljar Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/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 of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated
7/4/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Narsinghpur, in special Case No.44/2017; whereby
learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the
appellant Kedar Rajput, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in
Crime No.15/2016 registered at P.S. Saikheda, District
Narsinghpur, M.P. for the offences punishable under Sections 376,
354, 354(B), 294, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii),
3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v), of ST/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

[2] As per prosecution case, on 20/1/2017 prosecutrix lodged a
report averring that on 31/12/2016 at about 2 a.m. when she was
sleeping in her house situated at Village Udni P.S. Saikheda, the
applicant came to her house and committed rape with her.
Thereafter, on 19/1/2017 at about 2 p.m., the applicant again came
to her house and abused her and also used criminal force on her to
outrage her modesty. On that report, police registered Crime
no.15/2017 at police station Saikheda for the offence punishable
under Sections 376, 354, 354(B), 294, 506 of IPC and under
Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v), of ST/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act and investigated the matter. During investigation
on 15/3/17 police arrested the applicant and after investigation
charge-sheet was filed, on which Special Case No.44/2017 was
registered. During trial of the case, appellant filed an application
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was
rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act vide order dated 7/4/2017. Being aggrieved by the
impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant
has falsely been implicated in this matter. Prosecutrix was major. It
is alleged that applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix on
31/12/2016 while prosecutrix lodged the report on 20/1/2017.There
is no appropriate explanation regarding the delay in FIR. The
applicant is in custody since 15/3/2017. Charge-sheet has been
filed and conclusion of trial will take considerable time. So
applicant be released on bail

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by
the appellant.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to
the fact that appellant is in custody since 15/3/2017, and that
Charge-sheet has been filled and conclusion of trial will take time,
without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed
that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

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 him;

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 fact of the case so as to dissuade him 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 he is 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 Court concerned for

compliance.

Accordingly, Cr. A. No. 2131/2017 is disposed of.

2. as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)

JUDGE
m/-

Cr.Appeal No.2239/17
25-07-2017

Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Pawan Gujjar,

learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Vijay Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent

No.1/State.

Shri S.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent

no.2/complainant.

Complainant is present in person.

Case diary perused and arguments heard.

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

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

dated 27/5/2017 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge for

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Special

Case No.31/2017; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the

bail application filed by the appellant Raju @ Ramprakash,

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail in Crime No.341/13

registered at P.S. Amla, District Betul, (M.P.) for the offences
punishable under Sections 342, 376(2) and 506 of I.P.C. and

also under Sections 3 (2) (v) read with 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and also under Section ¾

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

[2] As per prosecution case, on 26/9/2013 at about 8 p.m.

when the prosecutrix was going to attend the call of nature

near her house situated at village Jammwada, the appellant

met her on the way. He caught hold of her and took her to a

room built at Tejlal Sahu’s farm used for fastening bulls and

committed rape with her there and also threatened to kill her.

At about 12 a.m. the prosecutrix’s father Ramdas and mother

Sugarti Bai came there and on seeing them appellant fled

away. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to them.They took her

to P.S. Amla, Distt. Betul where she lodged the report. On that

report, police registered Crime no.341/13 for the offences

punishable under Sections 342, 376(2) (Jha) and 506 of I.P.C.

and also under Sections 3 (2) (v) read with 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the
matter. During investigation Police did not get the accused. So

after investigation police filed the charge sheet in the absence

of the appellant. On that, charge sheet, Special Case No. 31/17

was registered. Police arrested the appellant on 6/5/2017 and

produced before the court. Learned Court sent him to judicial

custody. On that appellant filed an application under Section

439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail, which was rejected by the learned

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order

dated 27/5/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order,

appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. Appellant

is in custody since 6/5/2017, the charge sheet has been filed

and conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released

on bail.

[4] Respondent No.2 and her counsel submitted that they

have no objection on appellant being granted bail .
[5] Learned counsel for the State/Respondent No.1 opposed

the prayer and submitted that In the marksheet the date of birth

of prosecutrix is mentioned as 08/10/98 which shows that

prosecutrix was only 15 years of age when the appellant

committed rape with her and appellant remained absconded

for a long period, So he shall not be released on bail.

[6] Looking to the allegations levelled against the appellant

that he committed rape of minor girl of 15 years and remained

absconding for a long time after incident. Besides the

possibility of tampering with the evidence by the accused if

released on bail at this stage also can not be ruled out.So in

the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not

commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant

for releasing him on bail at this stage. So his appeal is rejected

with the liberty that after recording the statement of the

prosecutrix, the appellant is free to again file fresh bail

application.

Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 2239/2017 is disposed of.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-

Cr.Appeal No.2384/17
24-07-2017
Shri Purshottam Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent No.1/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 (2)

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

dated 05.06.2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in M.Cr.C. No.453/2017;

whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application

filed by the appellant Suresh Patel, under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.87/2017 registered at P.S.

Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh, (M.P.) for the offences

punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. and also

under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act 1989.

[2] As per prosecution case, on 18.03.2017 appellant

abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of

incident, and took her to Orchha and from Orchha to village

Kochha Bhawar, Distt. Jhansi, where he kept the prosecutrix

till 28/5/2017 and committed rape. On that report, police

registered Crime no.87/2017 for the offences punishable under

Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. And Sections 3 (2) (5-A)

of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated

the matter. During investigation on 30.06.2017 police arrested

the appellant. On that appellant filed an application under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was

rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act vide order dated 5/6/2017. Being aggrieved by

the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. The

prosecutrix was major and she went with the appellant on her

own will and he also filed the Adhar Card of the prosecutrix in

support of his application, in which her age is mentioned as 20

years. The appellant is in custody since 30.06.2017, so

appellant be released on bail.

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer

made by the appellant.

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case

and statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the JMFC under

Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and as to the fact that appellant is in

custody since 30.06.2017, the charge sheet has been filed and

conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on

merit, the appeal is allowed.

[6] It is directed that the 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 in the like

amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

[7] 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 him;

2. The appellant will cooperate in
theinvestigation/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 fact of the case so as to
dissuade him 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 he is 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 Court concerned
for compliance.

Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 11174/2017 is disposed of.

CC as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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