IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.
Deepak Bansal – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2022
Decided On : 06-01-2022
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act - Bail Application - The court allowed the appeal and quashed the order rejecting the bail application, directing the release of the appellant on certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a second criminal appeal seeking bail after being arrested in connection with various offenses. The appellant claimed innocence and cited a compromise and acquittal from certain charges as changed circumstances warranting bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal, considering the compromise between the parties and the acquittal from certain charges, and directed the release of the appellant on specific conditions.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., change in circumstances, compromise between parties, non-compoundable charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the compromise and acquittal as changed circumstances warranting bail, and imposed specific conditions for the release of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the order rejecting the bail application, and directed the release of the appellant on specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Present second criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-(a)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 against the order dated 29/09/2021 passed by Special Judge (atrocities act), Gwalior (M.P.), whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.
The appellant has been arrested on 06/09/2021 in connection with Crime No.66/2021 registered at Police Station Padao, District Gwalior, punishable under Sections 420, 406, 294, 506 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(da)(dha), 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant- Deepak Bansal that the appellant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in the case. appellant is in custody since 06/09/2021, i.e. for around four months. It is further submitted that appellant is innocent. There is no overt act on the part of the present appellant. It is also submitted that no case against the appellant is made out under Sections 3(1)(da)(dha), 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act. This is second criminal appeal for grant of bail to the appellant. Earlier appeal was rejected on merits. Thereafter, the change circumstance is the recording of evidence of complainant - ashish Choudhary, wherein he has specifically stated that all the amount has been returned back to him by giving post dated cheques, therefore no criminal liability arose against the present appellant. It is further submitted that as per order-sheet dated 24/12/2021 of trial Court, parties are arrived at compromise and compromise has already been accepted by the trial Court and present appellant has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 406, 420, 506 of IPC. as Section 294 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(da)(dha), 3(2) (Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, are not compoundable, therefore trial is going on for aforesaid Sections. Trial will take its own time. appellant is ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed to grant bail to the appellant.
Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the appeal and has submitted that earlier appeal filed for grant of bail to the appellant was considered and rejected on merits by this Court. Thereafter, there is no changed circumstances under which this second criminal appeal for grant of bail could be considered. Hence, prayed to reject this repeat second bail application of the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary and documents available on record.
It is apparent from the perusal of documents available on record that compromise has taken place between the parties which is on record and trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charges under Sections 406, 420, 506 of IPC. as Section 294 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(da)(dha), 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, are not compoundable, therefore trial is going on for aforesaid Sections.
Remaining trial will take its own time.
Considering the aforesaid facts of the case as well as arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29/09/2021 passed by the Special Judge (atrocities act) Gwalior (M.P.) is quashed by directing that the appellant be released on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for his regular appearance before the trial Court concerned on the dates fixed by it.
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
The compromise between the parties and the acquittal from certain charges can be considered as changed circumstances warranting bail, and the court may impose specific conditions for the release of t....
The court may grant bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989, considering the custody duration and potential trial delay, without commenting on the me....
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the period of detention, the appellant's criminal history, and the likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case in a....
Point of law :Grant of Bail - appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and the same has not been considered properly and the appellant is in custody
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the fact of compromise and the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case in setting aside the order rejecting the bail application an....
Bail granted to accused lacking specific allegations in FIR, parity with co-accused, despite SC/ST atrocity charges.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.