Munnalal Sahu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J

Heard on this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed on behalf of the

appellant in Crime No.296/2018 registered by Police Station Harijan Jati Kalyan, Dindori, District Dindori,under Sections 363, 366 (A), 354, 354 (A) 2,

376A, 376 (1) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 (2) (5) and 3 (2)VA of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The appeal is directed against the order dated 14.1.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities), Act, Dindori in B.A. No.86/2021.

As per the prosecution case, the appellant along with co-accused Rannu Vadiya abducted the prosecutrixs Pinki and Chaiti Bai Dhurvey and had

taken them to Village Bargav on the pretext of doing work in Godown.

On the way, the appellant outraged the modesty of Pinki, who later on succeeded to ran away from the spot and narrated the incident to a boy passing

therefrom. The co-accused Rannu Vadiya has committed sexual intercourse with Chaiti Bai Dhurvey. On that basis the aforementioned case has

been registered against the appellant and he has been taken in to custody on 16.06.2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted

thatthere is a dispute of money between the applicant andprosecutrixs. Neither he has outraged modesty nor there is any allegation of sexual assault

prosecution witnesses namely Ku. Pinki Maravi (P.W.1), Ramesh Singh (P.W.2), Dr. Swati Nema (P.W.3), Teerath Singh Paraste (P.W.4) and

Prakash Kumar were recorded before the trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The appellant is a 44 years old person,

having no criminal past. He has been in custody since 16.06.2018. He is a permanent resident of address described in application. There is no chance

of his absconding or tampering with the witness. In view of the aforesaid, a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on regular bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1- State on the other hand has opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.

Although it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court

and they have not supported the case of the prosecution but at this stage it would not be just and proper to appreciate the evidence for grant of bail to

the appellant.

Consequently, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this appeal for grant of bail to the appellant filed under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands dismissed.