IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL th ON THE 9 OF MAY, 2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5979 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

MAHENDRA S/O SHRI DHEERAJ SINGH MEENA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KHETI R/O KUMBHRAJ THANA KUMBHRAJ DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI PRADEEP KATARE - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION KUMBHRAJ DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SAHAYAK UPNIRIKSHAK AJIT HUJUR S/O SHRI KAMEEL KUJUR R/O P.S. KUMBHRAJ GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI PRAMOD PACHOURI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SC/ST ACT)

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Guna in anticipatory bail application No.130/2023 whereby the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been Signature Not Verified rejected.

The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.358/2022 registered at Police Station- Kumbhraj, District- Guna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 186, 294, 342, 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

According to the prosecution case, on the date of incident i.e. 21.12.2022 when complainant/ Assistant Sub-Inspector Ajit Kujur in connection with Crime No. 222/2022 for offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act reached the residential place of absconding accused Mahendra Meena for giving a notice then absconding accused Mahendra Meena on seeing the police force started abusing and locked himself in the room. When the police force tried to convince the family members of absconding accused Mahendra Meena then his mother Kanti Bai stopped the police force by locking the gate and other accused also started abusing and asked the absconding accused not to open the gate. They obstructed the police action. On the basis of which Crime No. 358/2022 on the basis of the report of complainant for offence under Sections 353, 186, 294, 342, 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered against the appellant. After receiving a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. the appellant was released. Thereafter, the appellant applied anticipatory before the Court below by which the Court below by the impugned order has been rejected the same.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that when the accused Signature Not Verified is not arrested during investigation and he is cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before the IO as and when called him then, there is no need to forward such an accused alongwith the charge sheet. While issuing notice to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which did not warrant arrest. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2021) 10 SCC 773. Hence, the appellant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned order as well as documents and case diary.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Satendr