(MADHYA PRADESH) v. NO.1/STATE

Judgment

2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION BADAGAON DHASAN DISTRICT TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

RAMU BALMIKI S/O SHRI NATHUA BALMIKI , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O- KAKARWAHA, POLICE STATION BADAGAON DHASAN, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI DILIP KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2/COMPLAINANT DESPITE COMPLIANCE OF PROVISION OF SECTION 15(A)(III) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE. .....RESPONDENTS T h is appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: Case diary perused and arguments heard. ORDER This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Aman Jogi under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.214/2021 registered at P.S. Badagaon Dhasan District Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 302, 307, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per the prosecution case, on 04.11.2021 at around 10:00 PM, when Signature Not Verified SAN 2 Ritesh Valimik was playing near Dr. Chandsi's house located at village Kakarwaha, a quarrel took place between him and other children. Complainant Ramu intervened in the matter, at that time co-accused Chotu abused him, when he objected co- accused Chotu assaulted him by kicks and fists. When injured Suresh came to rescue him co-accused Kallu and Arvind assaulted him with stick. At that point of time, injured Rajesh came to rescue him, co-accused Manoj assaulted him with stick. At that point of time, co-accused Magan and Govind also came there and they also assaulted them by kicks and fists. When injured Laxman came to rescue them, co-accused Magan and Chotu assaulted Laxman with stick. During the incident, co-accused Chanda, Devendra, Rohit and appellant Aman also came there, they also abused complainant Ramu and other injured and assaulted them by kicks and fists and sticks, due to which complainant Ramu and injured Suresh, Rajesh and Laxman sustained injuries and due to that injury on 08.11.2021 during treatment injured Laxman died. On the report police registered Crime No.214/2021 registered at P.S. Badagaon Dhasan District Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 302, 307, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1) (R)(S) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and arrested the appellant on 10.11.2021. On that appellant filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 17.02.2022. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. The name of appellant is not mentioned in the FIR lodged by the complainant Ramu on the date of incident. Even, in the case diary statement of complainant Ramu and Suresh recorded by the police on

05.11.2021, the name of appellant is not mentioned. For the first time, on

09.11.2021 complainant Ramu and other eyewitnesses of the incident disclosed the fact to the Police that applicant was also involved in the crime. It is alleged that appellant and other co-accused persons assaulted deceased Laxman and injured Ramu, Rajesh and Suresh while in the postmortem report of the deceased Laxman, it is mentioned that only one injury was found on the body of the deceased, which Signature Not Verified SAN clearly shows that police falsely implicated the appellant in the crime. Appellant has been in custody since 10.11.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion 3 of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail. Learned counsel for the respondent/State and submitted that the name of appellant is mentioned in the report and he also took part in the incident and in the incident Laxman sustained injury and died, so he should not be released on bail. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that in the FIR lodged by the complainant Ramu soon after the incident and in the case diary statement of complainant Ramu name of the appellant is not mentioned, appellant is in custody since 10.11.2021, charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial. 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 trial;

3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him 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; and

6. The appellant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. Signature Not Verified SAN C.C. on payment of usual charges. 4 (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified SAN SAN