Sanjay Ojha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

I.A. No. 3119/2020, an application for submitting declaration and I.A. No. 3120/2020, an application for permission to file bail application without certified copy of the order of the trial Court as well as permission to file vakalatanama without Bar Stamp and for urgent hearing, are taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. The appellant is exempted from filing the certified copy of the trial Court's order and is also permitted to file vakalatanama without Bar Stamp.

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "SC/ST Act") against the order dated 11/5/2020 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Guna in Bail Application No.365/2020 by which the regular bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

The appellant has been arrested on 20/3/2020 in connection with Crime No.268/2020 registered at Police Station Cantt. Guna, District Guna for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant- Sanjay Jha that the appellant has been falsely implicated. He has not committed any offence. He is in custody since more than two months. No case is made out against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [(2018) 7 SCC 781] as in the present case there is no evidence relating to Section 107 of IPC. There is no evidence to connect the present appellant in this matter. It is further submitted that the investigation and thereafter trial will take its own time. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the appellant.

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the submission and submitted that in criminal cases, each case has its own facts, therefore, no case can be made citation for another case. It is further submitted that in the suicidal note, it is specifically mentioned that the appellant was teasing the deceased and in post-mortem report of the deceased, marks of strangulation were found on his neck, therefore, case of abetment of suicide is made out against the appellant. Hence, prayed to reject this criminal appeal.

On perusal of available record, it is apparent that the case is registered under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act and the prosecution has submitted that in the post-mortem report, strangulation marks were found on the neck of the deceased. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, at this stage, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant prayed to withdraw this criminal appeal with liberty to file afresh after filing of the charge-sheet.

In the interest of justice, prayer is allowed.

This criminal appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.

E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.