Laxminarayan Yadav vs State Of M.P. And Another

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this appeal has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Heard on I.A.No.16480/2020, an application filed under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the Public Prosecutor in the matter.

For the reasons mentions in the said application, I.A.No. 16480/2020 is allowed and Shri R.K.Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of the complainant is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor in the matter.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Present second appeal has been filed under Section 14-, (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter would be referred as "the Act") against the order dated 23.07.2020 passed by the Special Judge, District Bhind, whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

The appellant is in custody since 18.07.2020 in connection with Crime No.172/2019 registered at Police Station Ater, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. The earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2020 in Cr.A.No. 4232/2020 with liberty to repeat the same after filing of the charge sheet. It is submitted that thereafter, the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed on 16.09.2020. There is no allegation of inflicting injury to the injured on the present applicant. The appellant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court while considering the application for grant of bail. The appellant has also shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.10000/- towards the PM Care Fund during this Covid-19 pandemic scenario. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the appellant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as counsel for the complainant has opposed the application stating that merely filing of challan does not entitle the present appellant for grant of bail. The main accused is still absconding in the matter and he has not cooperated in the investigation. It is submitted that there is an ample evidence against the present appellant collected during the investigation. The appellant is having a criminal history of six cases including the present case. It is submitted that looking to the custody period of the present appellant, he does not deserve to be granted bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the criminal history of the present appellant coupled with the fact that the main accused is still absconding in the matter, this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is hereby rejected.

E-copy of this order be provided to the appellant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.