Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1152 (MP)

Shivdayal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-10-21

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Subodh Abhyankar, J. - Heard. 2. This first criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2020 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Betul (M.P.) by which bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant has been dismissed. 3. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.202/2020, registered at Police Station Sarni, District Betul (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (n), 313, 312, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5a), 3(1) (w) (i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 5J/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4. The allegation against the appellant is that he happens to be the father of the main accused Sunil Yadav against whom it is alleged that he committed rape of the prosecutrix. It is also alleged against the appellant that he gave certain pills to the prosecutrix, who had gone to him to complain about the acts of his son and also inform him that she has become pregnant on account of the rape committed by his son on the pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that the appellant threatened the prosecutrix of dire consequences and as per her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she has stated that a pill was given to her by the present appellant only for termination of her pregnancy. 5. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is more than 55 years old although it is mentioned that he is 65 years old in the application. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of rape against the present appellant and his role is confined only to protect his son, who had committed an offence. It is further submitted that the story of appellant giving pill to the prosecutrix for her abortion has come up for the first time in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which was recorded on 19.03.2020 although the offence is alleged to have taken place in the year 2019. It is further submitted that the story of appellant giving pill to the prosecutrix for her abortion has come up for the first time in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which was recorded on 19.03.2020 although the offence is alleged to have taken place in the year 2019. The counsel has further submitted that in the FIR the allegation of giving the pill to the prosecutrix is alleged against the son of the appellant and it is only because he happens to be the father of the main accused Sunil Yadav, he has been falsely implicated. The counsel has further submitted that no case under the Sections of IPC is made out and much less under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. The counsel has submitted that there are no criminal antecedents of the appellant and his arrest will bring ignominy to him and his family. 6. Counsel for the objector on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the statement recorded by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is sufficient to dismiss the present appeal and thus no case for bail is made out especially when it is barred under the provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and as such no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 7. Counsel for the respondent/State has also opposed the prayer and has submitted that looking to the statement of the prosecutrix especially the allegation against the present appellant of threatening the prosecutrix, no case for bail is made out. 8. On due consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that initially when the FIR was lodged on 18.03.2020 the allegation of administering the pill to the prosecutrix is alleged against the main accused Sunil Yadav only and the allegation against the appellant is of threatening only whereas in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she has taken U-turn and the allegation of administering the pill is shifted from his son to the present appellant. There is also no record of abortion of the prosecutrix. There is also no record of abortion of the prosecutrix. The case diary also reveals that the appellant has not imputed any aspersions regarding the caste of the prosecutrix and as such prima facie this Court is satisfied that against the appellant no case under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out and thus this Court can exercise its power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant is hereby allowed. 9. It is directed that appellant Shivdayal in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. 10. The appellant shall further abide by the following conditions : (i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and (iv) that the appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 11. C.c. as per rules.