CRA/5875/2020 of SUNIL PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020

The High Court Of Madhya PradeshCRA-5875-2020

(SUNIL PANDEY AND OTHERSVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

[31][-][12][-][2020]Jabalpur, Dated :

Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Rahul Tripathi, counsel for the appellants.

Shri Ramji Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State.

None for the victim, though served.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of appeal of appellant No. 1 Sunil Pandey.

As prayed, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn so far as it relates toappellant No. 1 Sunil Pandey.

Heard on the appeal of appellant No. 2 Shubham Pandey (hereinafter referred to as the appellant).

This is the first criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section14(A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act.

The appellant is in custody since 26.10.2020 in connection with Crime No. 1373/2020 registered as Police Station Kotwali, District Seoni for theoffences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 307/34 of the IndianPenal Code and Sections 3(1)(n-/k), 3(2)(v-d) of the Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has beenfalsely implicated in the case. The persons from both the parties sustainedinjuries and counter report has also been lodged by accused party against thecomplainant party, on which Crime No. 1372/2020 has been registered againstcomplainant party for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 294, 323,506/34 of the IPC. Initially, the offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 ofthe IPC were registered against the present appellant, however, injured Anchalobtained treatment at Nagapur for some days, therefore, offence underSection 307 of the IPC has been added subsequently in the case diary against the present appellant. The appellant is not the main accused. The mainaccused is Sunil, who is alleged to have assaulted Anchal by means of asharp pointed object on his abdomen. The appellant has no criminalantecedents. He is in custody since 26.10.2020 and trial would takeconsiderable time due to situation created by Covid-19 pandemic. In view ofthe aforesaid, prayer is made to release the appellant on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and natureof allegation against the appellant, I deem it appropriate to release theappellant on bail, therefore, without commencing on the merit of the case, thisappeal is allowed.

It is directed that appellant Shubham Pandey shall be released on bailon his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees FortyThousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of thetrial Court for his appearance before the trial Court concerned on all suchdates as may be fixed in this regard during trial.

It is further directed that the appellant shall comply with the provisionsof Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO)V. JUDGE

PB