Sattar Sheikh Mansoori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Bench: JUSTICE NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE

Sattar Sheikh Mansoori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2018

Law Point: 

JUDGEMENT

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. Case diary perused and arguments heard.

This appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by Special Judge, Chhatarpur SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No. 149/2018; whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.76/2018 registered at P.S. Maharajpur, Distt. Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376/34 of IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)

(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, who apprehends his arrest in the crime.

As per the prosecution case, on 21.05.2018 at about 8 pm appellant and co-accused Dharmendra abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of incident, and took her to Sawri Mata temple where co-accused Dharmendra committed rape with her. On that report, the police registered Crime No.76/2018 for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376/34 of IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)

(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The appellant filed an application under Section 438of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected. Being aggrieved by that order, present appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. In the case diary statement of the prosecutrix, name of the present appellant is not mentioned. From the FIR and the statement of prosectrix, no offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant. So the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA.5817/2018 (Sattar Sheikh Mansoori Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. ) Atrocities) Act are not attracted. Hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State submitted applicant is also involved in the crime of abduction of a minor girl, so he may not be released on bail.

Although offence under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been registered against the appellant and according to Section 18 Act provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to the persons committing an offence under the Act, but in Pankaj D. Suthar V/s. State Of Gujarat reported in (1992) 1 GLR 405 while considering the scope of Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the Gujarat High Court observed as under :-

“Section 18 of the Atrocities Act gives a vision, direction and mandate to the Court as to the cases where the anticipatory bail must be refused, but it does not and it certainly cannot whisk away the right of any Court to have a prima facie judicial scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint. Nor can it under its hunch permit provisions of law being abused to suit the mala fide motivated ends of some unscrupulous complainant.”

Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang and another V/s.

State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795 held as under :-

“The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record.”

The Apex Court also in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 243 held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would apply only, where there is THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA.5817/2018 (Sattar Sheikh Mansoori Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. ) prima facie case of an offence having been committed by the accused against a member of the SC/ST community. However, in the event the accused/applicant is able to show to the court the existence of malice and ill-will in the registration of the FIR, then the bar of Section 18 of SC/ST Act would not apply.

This shows that in the crime registered for the offences under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it is prima facie found that such an offence is not made out or accused/applicant is able to show to the court the existence of malice and ill-will in the registration of the FIR.

In the case diary statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the police on 26.05.2018 it is not mentioned that applicant is also involved in the crime. The allegation is mentioned only against the co-accused Dharmnendra, so looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant Sattar Sheikh Mansoori in Crime No.76/2018 registered at Police Station Maharajpur, District Chhatarpur, the present appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer/Arresting Officer for his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellants :

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The appellant will co-operate 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 him/her 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;

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA.5817/2018 (Sattar Sheikh Mansoori Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. )

5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the Trial Court/ Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge sarathe Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2018.08.21 18:12:22 +05’30’

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us