Manpyare Raikwar @ Kallu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention o f Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant for grant of

anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 216/2020 registered at Police Station-Bamitha, District- Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offence

punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(da) (dha) & 3(2)(5-ka) of SC/ST Act.

According to prosecution case, on 06.06.2020 at 5 o'clock in the evening when complainant was doing household work at that time appellant entered

into her house and asked her that her husband is residing outside. On that, she asked him that what do you mean with this and how you have entered

in my house? Then, appellant started abusing complainant by her caste and committed marpeet with her due to which she sustained injuries on her left

hand. Thereafter, she lodged a report in the concerned Police Station and FIR has been registered.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further submitted that appellant has

given Rs. 10,000/- to husband of the complainant (Mukesh) and when he asked to return the said amount, then complainant created a false story and

implicated his name in the false case, whereas no such alleged incident has been taken place. Primafacie no independent witness is available on the

record to prove the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that the complainant has filed the said FIR with malafide intention and in view of the

pronouncement of Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Prithavi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in 2020 SCC OnLine 15, 9the bail

application deserves to be allowed. He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court passed in the case ofA rnesh Kumar Vs. State of

Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 submitting that in the case in which offence involving punishment upto 7 years, the arrest of accused be made only when

same is necessary and the appellant do not cooperate in the investigation. Apart from this, there is no likelihood of his absconding and tempering the

evidence of prosecution.

With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing this bail application.

On the other hand, learned P.L. for the State opposes the submissions o f learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that under SC/ST Act there

is no provision to give anticipatory bail. Looking to the seriousness of the offence, anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected.

Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the contentions of learned counsel for parties and looking to the fact that some prima facie evidence is available on record against the

appellant-accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/appellant but it is also clear that offence involved in the present case are

not punishable for more than 7 years of imprisonment, then, in view of the pronouncement of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh

Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , I deem fit to observe that if appellant surrenders himself before police authority, then arrest

must be made after satisfying necessary parameters, as mentioned in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is hereby disposed off.