SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sattar Sheikh Mansoori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA.5817/2018
(Sattar Sheikh Mansoori Vs. State of M.P. Anr. )
1

Jabalpur, Dated : 21.08.2018
Shri B.J. Chourasia, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vivek Lakhera, G.A. for the respondent / State.

None 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 appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 27.07.2018
passed by Special Judge, Chhatarpur SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, in B.A. No. 149/2018; whereby learned Judge rejected the bail
application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get
anticipatory bail in Crime No.76/2018 registered at P.S. Maharajpur,
Distt. Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections
363, 366, 376/34 of IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)

(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, who apprehends his
arrest in the crime.

As per the prosecution case, on 21.05.2018 at about 8 pm
appellant and co-accused Dharmendra abducted the prosecutrix, who
was minor at the time of incident, and took her to Sawri Mata temple
where co-accused Dharmendra committed rape with her. On that report,
the police registered Crime No.76/2018 for offences under Sections
363, 366, 376/34 of IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)

(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The appellant filed an
application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for grant
of anticipatory bail, which was rejected. Being aggrieved by that order,
present appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. In the case diary
statement of the prosecutrix, name of the present appellant is not
mentioned. From the FIR and the statement of prosectrix, no offence
under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the
appellant. So the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA.5817/2018
(Sattar Sheikh Mansoori Vs. State of M.P. Anr. )
2

Atrocities) Act are not attracted. Hence, counsel prayed for grant of
anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State submitted applicant is also
involved in the crime of abduction of a minor girl, so he may not be
released on bail.

Although offence under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been registered against the
appellant and according to Section 18 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 abused to suit the mala fide
motivated ends of some unscrupulous complainant.”

Apex Court 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.”

The Apex Court also in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 243 held that the bar
under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would apply only, where there is
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA.5817/2018
(Sattar Sheikh Mansoori Vs. State of M.P. Anr. )
3

prima facie case of an offence having been committed by the accused
against a member of the SC/ST community. However, in the event the
accused/applicant is able to show to the court the existence of malice
and ill-will in the registration of the FIR, then the bar of Section 18 of
SC/ST Act would not apply.

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 or accused/applicant is able
to show to the court the existence of malice and ill-will in the
registration of the FIR.

In the case diary statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the
police on 26.05.2018 it is not mentioned that applicant is also involved
in the crime. The allegation is mentioned only against the co-accused
Dharmnendra, so looking into the facts and circumstances of the case,
without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed and it is directed
that in the event of arrest of appellant Sattar Sheikh Mansoori in Crime
No.76/2018 registered at Police Station Maharajpur, District
Chhatarpur, 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 Investigation Officer/Arresting Officer for his regular appearance
before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during
trial.

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

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

2. The appellant will co-operate 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 he is accused;

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA.5817/2018
(Sattar Sheikh Mansoori Vs. State of M.P. Anr. )
4

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 court for
compliance.

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
sarathe

Digitally signed by
NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Date: 2018.08.21
18:12:22 +05’30’

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