SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(MP) 1278

High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Anand Pathak, J.
SUNITA GANDHARVA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M. P. & ANR. - RESPONDENTS
M. Cr. C. No. 22615 of 2020
Decided On : 08-10-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant : H. K. Shukla
For Respondent: C. P. Singh, Gaurav Mishra

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366-A, 376 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Bail cancellation application - The accused, initially granted bail, allegedly violated conditions by contacting the prosecutrix, leading to concerns of intimidation and harassment. The court grappled with the maintainability of the cancellation application vis-a-vis jurisdiction between Atrocities Act and POCSO Act due to overlapping provisions regarding crimes involving minors from SC/ST communities. The court found no basis for cancellation after assessing the victim's statements, emphasizing the importance of protecting victims' rights. (Paras 1-7, 32-36, 82-83)

Findings of Court:
The application for cancellation of bail was deemed maintainable, yet lacked sufficient grounds to revoke bail at this time, highlighting ongoing monitoring of the accused's conduct and future liberty of the complainant to revisit the request if needed. (Issue of jurisdiction and interplay between Acts were also clarified.)

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application for cancellation of bail under atrocities act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. evidence for bail violation and ongoing threat to victim. (Para 3 , 4)
3. accused's arguments against cancellation of bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. state's position and external legal perspectives. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. discussion on legislative intent and reformation in laws. (Para 11 , 12)
6. important questions framed regarding bail conditions. (Para 17 , 18)
7. analysis on jurisdiction and precedence of laws. (Para 19 , 20)
8. emphasis on victim's rights and legislative interpretation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
9. conclusions on misinterpretation affecting victim's rights. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
10. arguments about community service as a rehabilitative measure. (Para 31 , 72 , 76)
11. final court decision on non-cancellation of bail. (Para 32 , 82)
12. court directions and disposition of the case. (Para 83 , 84 , 85)

ORDER : – The instant application under section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant /complainant (hereinafter shall be referred to as “complainant”) for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused (hereinafter shall be referred as “accused”), who was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26-2-2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 1759/2020. Accused is facing trial for offence under section 363, 366-A, 376 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”) and section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”).

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the complainant that earlier accused kidnapped the minor daughter of complainant, aged 16 years for which complaint was made and FIR was registered vide crime No. 486/2019 on 25-8-2019 for offences referred above. Accused was arrested on 3-9-2019 and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. Thereafter, accused preferred application under section 439 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE before the trial Court for bail but same was dismissed, therefore, accused as appellant filed criminal appeal vide Cr.A.No. 1759/2020 under section 14-A (1)(2) of Atrocities Act against the order dated 4-10-2019 passed by trial Court. After due consideration, appeal preferred by accused against the order of trial Court seeking bail, was allowed vide order dated 26-2-2020 and accused was directed to be released on bail on certain conditions including the conditions that accused shall not try to move in the vicinity of prosecutrix and would not try to contact her in any manner and would not cause harassment, otherwise on the basis of misconduct, his bail application shall be rejected. Another contrition that that accused shall not commit same nature of offence for which he is facing trial. He was also subjected to the condition that he shall not induce or intimidate to any person, who is acquainted with the facts of the case.

3. It appears that after being released on bail (by the effect of order dated 26-2-2020), accused again tried to contact the prosecutrix and therefore, after four months on 30th June, 2020, complainant found her daughter missing, therefore, lodged an FIR against the present accused on 1-7-2020 at same police station Kotwali Bhind for offence under section 363 of Indian Penal Code vide crime No. 286/2020. He also made a complainant to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind on 4-7-2020, duly received by the office of Superintendent of Police, Bhind, in which she referred the conduct of accused; whereby, he constantly threatened the family of prosecutrix and exerted pressure for compromise. She specifically referred the fact that frequently, accused attacked the house of present complainant through bricks and stones to intimidate them. She also referred the fact regarding violation of bail conditions.

4. On this complainant, since FIR was registered and case was investigated, therefore, complainant filed this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top