IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK ON THE 3^rd OF NOVEMBER, 2022 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9707 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

PRADEEP RANA S/O SHRI HEM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVENT R/O GUDA GUDI KA NAKA GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI ARUN KUMAR PATERIYA - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1. THROUGH POLICE STATION MURAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

ABHIYOKTRI THROUGH POLICE STATION

2. MURAR, GWALIOR POLICE STATION MURAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAJIV UPADHYAY – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

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

ORDER

The appellant has filed this criminal appeal under Section 14-

A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 01.10.2022, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Gwalior whereby, bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 439 of Cr.P.C. of appellant has been rejected.

Appellant has been arrested on 25.09.2022 by the Police Station-

Murar District- Gwalior in connection with Crime No.658/2022, registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 323, 454, 376(D), 376(2)(n), 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It is the submission of counsel for the appellant that appellant is suffering confinement since 25.09.2022 and charge-sheet is likely to be filed soon. As per allegation, appellant and his brother-in-law committed offence of rape over the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that earlier, appellant and prosecutrix shared emotional proximity for some years and when appellant decided to enter into the wedlock then prosecutrix did not like the idea as she wanted to continue with relationship therefore, false case has been registered. Different photographs showing their proximity in support of submission were referred. Medical report belies the allegation as no injury has been sustained by the prosecutrix over her person. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention especially when he does not bear any criminal record. He undertakes to cooperate in trial and shall not cause any harassment and embarrassment to the complainant in any manner and shall not move in their vicinity. Thus, he prayed for grant of bail.

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

Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary.

Considering the submissions and arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and the impugned order dated 01.10.2022 is set-aside and it is hereby directed that appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

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 his;

2. The appellant will cooperate 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 them 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;

5. The appellant will not move in the vicinity of complainant party and appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournment during the trial;

6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and

7. Appellant shall not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant side in any manner and shall not move in their vicinity.

Appeal stands a