Mintu Raja vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 8/8/2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.198/2019; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.93/2019 registered at P.S. Satai, Distt. Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 436, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(1) (D) and 3(2)(5-A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

As per prosecution case, on 14/4/2019 at about 7 p.m. appellant set ablaze in the house of complainant Gangu Prajapati situated at village Parba and caused damage to the tune of Rs.4.50 lac. On that, police registered Crime no. 93/2019 at P.S. Satai, Distt. Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 436, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(1)(D) and 3(2)(5-A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. During investigation, on 15/6/2019 police arrested the appellant. On that, appellant filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 8/8/2019. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime except the case diary statement of Golu Prajapati. Although, in the case diary statement of Golu Prajapati recorded by the police on 28/7/2019, it is mentioned that he saw the incident but earlier also police recorded the statement of Golu Prajapati on 15/4/2019 and in that statement, Golu did not disclose the fact that he saw the incident which shows that the police recorded false statement of Golu that he saw the incident. The appellant is in custody since 15/6/2019. Charge sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that other offences are also registered against the applicant. So, he should not be released on bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that the appellant is in custody since 15/6/2019, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

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

The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

The appellant will cooperate in the trial;

3.The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact 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;

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The appellant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. C.C. as per rules.