Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 324 (MP)

Budhhu Jatav v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-02-25

ANAND PATHAK

body2022
JUDGMENT anand Pathak, J. - The appellant has filed this criminal appeal under Section 14-a(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 13.09.2021, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, Shivpuri whereby, bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. of appellant has been rejected. Appellant has been arrested on 21.05.2021 by the Police Station- amola, District- Shivpuri, in connection with Crime No.87/2021, registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 325, 323, 324, 294, 506, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(v-a) and 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST(Prevention of atrocities) act. It is the submission of counsel for the appellant that appellant is in confinement since 21.05.2021 and charge-sheet has already been filed. This is the case of cross FIR whereby on behalf of appellant's side cross case has been registered vide crime No.86/2021. On minor pretext, dispute erupted and soon converted into free fight. Role of present appellant was confined to inflicting Lathi blow to the persons namely Dayalu and anant Singh in which Dayalu sustained simple injuries and anant Singh sustained fracture over his lower ulna bone. Counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble apex court in the cases of Gajanand Vs. State of U.P. reported in aIR 1954 SC 695 , Munir Khan Vs. State of U.P. reported in aIR 1971 SC 335 and Puran Vs. State of Rjasthan reported in aIR 1976 SC 912 to submit that when both the parties involved in free fight, then individual act is to be seen. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. applicant does not bear any criminal record. He undertakes to cooperate in trial/investigation and shall not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant party in any manner. Looking to the period of custody, he prayed for grant of bail. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them. Considering the submissions and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and impugned order dated 13.09.2021 is set-aside in the following terms. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them. Considering the submissions and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and impugned order dated 13.09.2021 is set-aside in the following terms. It is hereby directed that appellant shall be released on bail on furnishings bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :- 1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; 5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; 6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance from the office of this Court. Certified copy as per rules/directions.