Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 650 (MP)

Kartar Singh v. State of M. P.

2006-05-04

B.M.GUPTA

body2006
ORDER 1. This is first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of CrPC by the applicants. 2. These cases are arising out of Crime No. 29/06 of the P.S. Piparai, District Ashok Nagar. Hence, both are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the case against the applicants has been registered under section 342, 294/323 read with section 34 of IPC alongwith section 3 (1) (x) of S.C S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and except the offence under the Atrocities Act rest of the offences are bailable. It is also contended that the case under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not made out. It is further contended that in the impugned order dated 25th March, 2006, in place of 342-442 has wrongly been typed. 4. It is admitted by the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the State that the offence against the applicants has been registered as has been indicated on behalf of the applicants hereinabove. 5. Countering the allegation of the learned counsel for the applicants, it is argued that the case under the provisions of the Act is made out and under that offence the provisions of anticipatory bail are not applicable as provided under section 18 of the Act. 6. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that nothing is mentioned in the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant which can lead towards the offence under the Act. However, in the statements of Pappu and Suresh which have been recorded under section 161 on 13.2.2006 i.e. after about five days of the incident, it is only mentioned in these statements that during the incident the word Kuriawala was used which can be said about the caste of the complainant. Nothing else is available on record which can indicate that there was an intention of the applicants to insult intimidate with intent to humiliate the complainant as his being a member of Scheduled Caste. It is mentioned in the HR that on the ground of election dispute the alleged incident has happened. Thus, prima facie, no offence under the Act appears to be made out. 7. It is mentioned in the HR that on the ground of election dispute the alleged incident has happened. Thus, prima facie, no offence under the Act appears to be made out. 7. However, without mentioning anything about the merits of the case after considering all the facts and contentions as raised at the bar, the application deserves to be allowed. Although other offences are bailable for which no provision of section 138 CrPC are applicable yet as the case has been registered under section 3 (1)(X) of the Act, the apprehension of their arrest cannot be denied. And when such apprehension is there, in the circumstances of the case applicants deserve bail. In the last Mr. Dwivedi' has drawn the attention towards the judgments delivered by different Bench of this Court in Shyam Singh @ Dhannu v. State of M.P and others and Rajendra Singh and others v. State of M.P and others reported in 2006 CrLR MP 171 and 174, do support the approach. 8. Thus, the application is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest they shall be enlarged on bail for a period of 40 days on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- each alongwith one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on condition that they shall abide by the conditions as prescribed in subsection 2 of section 138 of CrPC. M.Cr.C. 1479/04 and M.Cr.C. 1486/06 are disposed of.