Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/6330/2020 of AJAY JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020
Court Of Madhya PradeshThe High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CRA-6330-2020 (AJAY JAIN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Signature Not Verified
The High Court Of Madhya PradeshCRA-6330-2020
(AJAY JAINVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
2
[31][-][12][-][2020]Jabalpur, Dated :
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramji Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
This is first appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 filed by the appellantseeking anticipatory bail.
The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with CrimeNo.443/2020 registered at Police Station Shahgarh, Chhatarpur M.P. foroffence under Section 294 and 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) ofSC/ST Act, 1989.
As per prosecution case, on the report of complainant-Gyani Adiwasian FIR was registered against the present appellant for aforesaid offences.The complaint was to the effect that the appellant demanded illegal money forgiving some benefits in relation of Samman Nidhi to the complainant. On03.12.2020 the appellant abused the complainant calling him by caste nameand also slapped him.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the applicant has beenfalsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that no case under theSC/ST Act is made out against the present appellant. Apart that, offenceunder Section 294 and 323 of IPC are bailable. On these grounds, prayer ismade to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the present appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. An offence wasregistered against the applicant-Rajendra and an FIR was lodged againstPatwari Ajay Jain. Both the cases were registered at different police stationsi.e. Bakaswa and Shahgarh. Offence is registered on different dates. Both the Signature Not VerifiedSAN
grievous injuries.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it afit case to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this appealis hereby dismissed.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)V. JUDGE
anand