Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 629 (MP)

Prakash Chandra v. State of M. P.

2014-06-09

J.K.JAIN

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of grant of anticipatory bail. 2. This is an application filed by the applicant under section 438 of the CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.288/2013 punishable under section 354, 354A. 509 IPC and section 3(1)(xi) Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (in brief the Act) registered at Police Station Raoti, Distt. Ratlam. 3. As per the prosecution case, complainant Smt. Sharda W/o Lunja, aged about 35 years submitted a written complaint before Superintendent of Police, Ratlam on 23.7.2013 stating that she belongs to Schedule Tribe caste. On the date of incident, she has gone to Govt. Hospital, Raoti as a attendant of a pregnant lady. Thus, she has to stay in the Hospital at night. In the late night she was drinking water from the water tank which is situated within the campus of hospital. At the time, applicant Prakash who is a leader of BJP came there and he caught hold her hand and tried to take her in a lonely place. Then she cried for rescue, but nobody came there and the applicant ran away. Immediately, she has not narrated the incident to anybody. In the next day morning, she narrated the incident to his brother and family members. Thereafter, she went to Police Thana, Raoti, but the police did not lodge her report. Then she submitted a written complaint to Superintendent of Police, Ratlam. After due enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has registered a case against the applicant on 18.12.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the written complaint was submitted to Superintendent of Police, he has directed the SHO to enquire into the matter and submit report SHO in his report found that the complaint was false. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Deputy Superintendent of Police again enquired the matter. During enquiry, he has recorded the statement of one Badrilal, after lapse of 5 months of the incident. Prosecutrix herself stated the nobody was present at the time of incident, then how Badrilal after 5 months of the alleged incident corroborates the statement of the complainant. There was previous enmity of the applicant with the Shardabai and Badrilal, therefore, they tried to falsely implicate the applicant. Prosecutrix herself stated the nobody was present at the time of incident, then how Badrilal after 5 months of the alleged incident corroborates the statement of the complainant. There was previous enmity of the applicant with the Shardabai and Badrilal, therefore, they tried to falsely implicate the applicant. There is no prima facie case against the applicant, therefore, in this case bard of section 18 of the Act does not come in the way. Learned counsel for the applicant cited many judgments of this Court as well as of Hon’ble the apex Court. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer oppose the bail on the ground that there is a prima facie case against the applicant and in view of the provisions contained in section 18 of the Act, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail, therefore, the application be dismissed. 7. It will be useful to refer the judgment of Hon’ble the apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawer v. State of Maharashtra (2012)8 SCC 795 . Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- 9. “Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is cast on the Court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with case name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.” 10. “The scope of section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no Court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out”. 8. In light of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, I have to examine whether there is a prima facie case for an offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is made out. For this purpose, I have considered the written complaint submitted by the complainant to S.P. Ratlam on 23.7.2013 and statement under section 161 of witness Badrilal recorded on 21.12.2013 and the enquiry report of SHO. 9. For this purpose, I have considered the written complaint submitted by the complainant to S.P. Ratlam on 23.7.2013 and statement under section 161 of witness Badrilal recorded on 21.12.2013 and the enquiry report of SHO. 9. The complaint does not disclose the date and time of the incident. Complainant does not disclose the name of her brother to whom she has stated the story on next day morning. Thus, the complaint is vague. 10. Witness Badrilal in his statement stated that after hearing the cry, he reached to the place of incident and he saw that the applicant has caught hold the hand of one lady and she was crying, but he didn’t ask that lady why she was crying. After lapse of 8 to 10 days that lady met him in the haat (Bazaar) and asked him that whether he has seen the incident and whether he will depose the incident, then he narrated the incident to police. 11. The statement of Badrilal cannot be believed because the complainant stated that at the time of incident nobody was present and she doesn’t state that the Badrilal witnessed the incident. The matter was inquired by the SHO, but at that time complainant didn’t disclose that Badrilal was present at the time of incident, therefore, in his report SHO found that nobody has corroborated the incident and found that the complaint was false. The report SHO is part of the case diary. 12. Thus, I prima facie found that the offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out, therefore, the bar contained in section 18 of the Act does not attract in this case. 13. I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 14. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnishing two solvent sureties each of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. He would abide by conditions mentioned in section 438(2) of the CrPC.