Bharat Parihar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 1358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J.
Bharat Parihar – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 11335 of 2022
Decided On : 07-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shiv Kumar Yadav, Advocate, G.P.Chaurasia, Advocate
Final Result : Allowed

Headnote:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Bail Application - The court allowed the bail application of the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, considering the fact that the appellant had been in custody since a specific date and the conclusion of the trial would take some time.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of his bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. He had been arrested in connection with a case involving offenses under Sections 366, 376(D), 342 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of S.C.S.T. Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and another individual had committed sexual offenses against a married lady.
Finding of the Court:

The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, allowed the appellant's bail application, considering that he had been in custody for a specific period and the trial would take some time. The court imposed conditions for the appellant's release on bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail despite the serious nature of the charges against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellant's period of custody and the expected duration of the trial as significant factors in allowing the bail application.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and ordered the appellant's release on bail upon fulfilling specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by Special Judge,(Atrocities) Shivpuri, whereby, application of appellant preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. Appellant has been arrested on 06.09.2022 by Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.529/2022 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(D), 342 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of S.C.S.T. Act.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted.

4. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 03.09.2022 at 12.54 P.M., prosecutrix a married lady aged about 20 years along with her husband at village Dawarbhat lodged a report at Police Station Karera,District Shivpuri against one Kalluti alleging that on 02.09.2022 in the evening at 3 P.M., from village Madgava by walking and she reached her in-laws house to village Dawarbat. At 5 P.M. when she reached near the aforesaid village, present appellant/accused along with Kalluti enquired from her where she was going and told her that they will leave her in the house. When she refused, present applicant/ accused requested her that come and sit on the motorcycle we will leave her in the house. She sat on their motorcycle. Despite leaving in her house, they took her in a forest. She jumped from the motorcycle. Thereafter, present applicant/accused committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, Kalluti went to buy liquor. Thereafter, they took her in the cottage. Kalluti caught hold of her. Present applicant/accused forcefully give her to drink liquor.

5. Thereafter, they repeatedly commit sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, they slept. In the morning she had started for her house. When she reached in the field, her husband met her. She narrated the story. On her report, offence under Sections 366, 376(D), 342 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of S.C.S.T. Act. bearing Crime No.529/2022 was registered. She was sent for medical examination. Appellant/accused along with co-accused were arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the case beside this prosecutrix is a married lady He is in custody since 06.09.2022. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. He undertakes to cooperate in investigation/trial and to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Conclusion of trial will take some time. On such premises, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for bail.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Both the Advocates are heard. Case diary perused.

9. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that applicant is in custody since 06.09.2022 and conclusion of trial will take some time, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the application should be allowed and by allowing the application it is ordered that if the appellant furnishes a cash surety of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) alongwith a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one local solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he should be released on bail with condition that if he remains absent during trial, the said security will stand forfeited automatically without notice to the appellant.

10. He will present during trial before the trial Court on each and every date and will cooperate with the trial.In case of default, the cash security of Rs.25,000/- shall stand forfeited automatically.

11. Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

13. Ce

Click Here to Read the rest of this document