IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK ON THE 21^st OF NOVEMBER, 2022 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10245 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

RAVI KUSHWAH S/O SHRI PARSHURAM KUSHWAH, 1.

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O- VILLAGE SINAWAL POLICE STATION SINAWAL DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

BALVEER DUBEY S/O SHRI HARCHARAN DUBEY, 2.

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O -VILLAGE SINAWAL POLICE THANA SINAWAL DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI M.S. DUBEY – ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH

1.

POLICE STATION SINAWAL DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

SMT. KALLO W/O RAMDAS VANSHKAR, AGED

2.

ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O- VILLAGE SINAWAL POLICE STATION SINAWAL DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI A.P.S. TOMAR – PANEL LAWYER)

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

ORDER

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), District Datia, whereby the application of the appellants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected.

Appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1) (d), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered vide Crime No.77/2022 at Police Station Sinawal, District Datia, (M.P.).

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are apprehending their arrest on the basis of registration of offence referred above. It is further submitted that except offence under the special statutes (Atrocities Act), all bailable in nature. Complainant initially wanted easementory rights over the land belong to the present appellants but was was denied by the appellants, therefore complaint has been lodged at C.M. Helpline Website which was later on disposed of as not pressed. Now to exert pressure over the appellants, this device has been adopted by the complainant. Counsel relied upon the order of this Court in the matter of Atendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of M.P., 2019 (2) MPLJ (Cri) 481 in support of his submission. Appellants do not bear any criminal record. Confinement would bring them social disrepute and personal inconvenience. Appellants undertake to cooperate in investigation/trial and would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant party in any manner and they would not move in the vicinity of complainant party. Under these grounds, counsel prayed for anticipatory bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

Considering the submissions and nature of the allegation as well as fact situation, without commenting any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow criminal appeal for grant of anticipatory bail. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the appellants shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority /

Investigating Officer.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellants:-

1. The appellants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;

2. The appellants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The appellants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be.

4. The appellants will not seek unnecessary adjournments duri