Ratanlal And Mukesh vs State Of Mp

This criminal appeal is filed under Section 14 (A) (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail against order dated

14.01.2020 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST, Ujjain, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the bail application filed by the appellant-Rahul and

Mukesh under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.8/2020 registered at Police Station-AJK Jharda, District-Ujjain for the offence under

Section 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3 (ii) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

At the outset, the admitted position is that the present appellants and the complainant belongs to the same community, therefore, provision of SC/ST

Act particularly the provision of section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply in the case of the present appellants.

Prosecution case as well as contention of the complainant is that on 06.01.2020, complainant Rajesh Warshi lodged FIR at 20:10 hours that in the

afternoon at about 13:30 hours at the gate of hospital at Jharda, both the appellants stopped him and inquired about their niece Sushila. When the

complainant expressed his ignorance, they abused him in the name of his caste and beat him with kicks and fists. He sustained injuries on the thumb of

the left hand. On his clamour, Kamal, Shankar and Bheru intervened and rescued him. During the incident, his mobile got misplaced.

The FIR was registered under section 323, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC and 3 (ii) (va) of SC/ST Act. The complainant was sent for medical

examination but no external injury was found.

As per submission of the learned counsel for the complainant, the police had not recorded his complaint/FIR as narrated by him; therefore, on the

very next day i.e. on 07.01.2020 he submitted a written complaint before the SP, Ujjain, narrating the true incident that the appellants alongwith other

co-accused persons actually kidnapped him. They forced him to sit on their motorcycle in the middle of both of them and took him to some distance

and left him at petrol pump few 100 meters away from the place of kidnapping. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that

he was asked to approach the police station with some evidence; therefore, on the next day he produced CD before the police.

The police added section 120-B and 365 of the IPC in the offence registered against the appellants earlier.

Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that nephew of the complainant Rajesh, Narendra had kidnapped sister-in-law of the

appellant Ratanlal Sushilabai much prior to the FIR lodged by the complainant Rajesh. He had lodged complaint before the police authorities to trace

her sister-in-law Sushila on 27.12.2012. He made complaints to several authorities. To counter those complaint, the complainant has lodged false

report. In fact, the incident, which is first reported by Rajesh, is also false as at the alleged time of the incident, he was not in Jharda but was present

in Lok Seva Kendra, Barod. He has filed an application under RTI to obtain CCTV footage showing his presence at Barod and still waiting for reply

of the Public Information Officer.

It is further argued that there is no evidence that the complaint dated 07.01.2020 was filed by the complainant. In the complaint dated 08.01.2020

filed by the complainant before the SHO, there is no mention of the complaint dated 07.01.2020. In CCTV footage, he is not visible on the spot. All

these shows that the police have acted against him maliciously on the instigation of the complainant.

SHO and Investigating Officer are present in person. They alongwith learned public prosecutor have admitted that the appellants are not visible in

the CCTV footage but they have opposed the prayer of the appellants stating that they were named in the FIR.

After going through the evidence collected during the investigation and other facts and circumstances of the present case, without commenting on

merits, at this stage, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the appellants’ arrest or surrender before the police within a

month of this order, the appellants Ratanlal S/o Kaluji and Mukesh S/o Dhulaji shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police

Station concerned. The applicant would abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.