(BY MS. PRACHI BANSAL - ADVOCATE) v. This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed

(BY MS. PRACHI BANSAL - ADVOCATE) AND

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION (MADHYA DHARAMPURI DISTRICT DHAR PRADESH) SNEHA D/O VINOD THAKUR THROUGH P.S. DHARAMPURI, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) .....RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the following: ORDER This is fourth Criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant U/S.14(A)(2) of SC & ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with Crime No.613/2022 dated : not mentioned, registered at Police Station : Dharampuri, District - Dhar under Sections 420, 366, 370, 506, 34 of IPC and 3(2)(va), 3(2) (v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. The earlier appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 25-09-2023 17:30:55 2 of this Court at Gwalior in Cri.A No.1502/2023. In the said judgment it was held that repeat Criminal Appeal is not maintainable, however, the appellant has liberty to approach the Trial Court afresh on change circumstances. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Trial Court and by the impugned order dated 17/7/2023, the appeal has been rejected.

2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the repeat criminal appeal is maintainable after approaching the Trial Court in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Cri.A. No.7453/2023.

As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the prosecutrix met Maya and one Pankaj and they introduced her to one Sanjay who called her when she was going to college on 26/10/2022. She was told that she has to go to Maharashtra and get married. Thereafter, she was taken to Maharashtra where her marriage was performed with one Ajit in the Court on 29/10/2022. The accused persons are said to have introduced themselves in the marriage as relatives of the prosecutrix. After marriage when she told her husband the fact that they are not her relative then her husband told her that the accused persons had taken Rs.1,80,000/- from him for making necessary arrangement for marriage. The marriage is said to have been taken place on 29/10/2022 and the FIR was lodged after delay on 19/12/2022.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was major on the date of incident and upon perusal of her complaint and statement, prima facie no case is made out against the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 21/12/2022, no further custodial interrogation is required.

Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the husband of the complainant, Ajit has made specific allegation that an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was taken by the accused persons in the name of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 25-09-2023 17:30:55 making arrangement in the marriage. Further, the appellant has got one criminal 3 record.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and the fact that she was major on the date of incident and had gone along with the accused persons to Maharashtra and while in Maharashtra's Court, marriage was performed she did not raise any alarm at any stage. Further, considering the statement of Ajit, husband of the prosecutrix and the fact that there is one criminal record of the appellant, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for grant of bail on the following conditions:- A ) The appellant shall deposit Rs.45,000/- at the time of her release, as the alleged amount is Rs.1,80,000/- among four accused persons. B) That the appellant shall not indulge in any offence while on bail. If the appellant indulges in any offence while on bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.

It is directed that appellant Maya@Sonu shall be released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Court below.

A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General, on their email address, for intimation to the Police Station concerned. The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the Ld. Court below.