AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant has preferred this appeal (second) under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended by Act of 2015) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, feeling aggrieved by order dated 04.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (under SC / ST Act), Ratlam (MP) in Special ST / Bail Application No.85/2011, whereby the prayer for grant of regular bail has been declined.
Appellant has been arrested on 15.03.2019 in connection with crime No.254/2011 registered at Police Station A.J.K. Ratlam, District Ratlam (MP) in connection with offence punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
As per prosecution case, on the basis of allegations made by the prosecutrix, the alleged offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been registered against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case was registered against the appellant in the year 2011 and after arrest, he was released on bail by the trial Court. Thereafter, he was regularly appearing before the trial Court; but on 10.12.2014 he could not mark his presence before the trial Court. Hence, non bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him and in compliance to the aforesaid warrant, he was arrested on 15.03.2019. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is a labour class worker and he went to Rajasthan for his livelihood and was working there. Therefore, he could not mark his presence before the trial Court. He assured that the appellant will remain present before the trial Court on each and every date. To show his bona fide, learned counsel for the appellant proposed that the appellant is ready to deposit the full amount of his previous personal bond. He also submitted that the appellant is in custody since 15.03.2019. Both the parties have settled their dispute and have also entered into a compromise. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the objector has no serious objection in grant of bail to the appellant as the parties have compromised the matter.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellant on bail; hence the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the criminal appeal filed by the appellant may be accepted. Consequently, setting aside the impugned order, the appeal is hereby allowed. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail upon execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and with a condition that he will deposit the total amount of his previous personal bond, for his / her regular presence during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.
This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.8474/2019 stands disposed of.
C. c. as per rules.