SUJJANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal (first) under Sec. 14(A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended by Act of 2015) read with Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dtd. 13/2/2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shajapur (M.P.) whereby application for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed.

(2.) It is also submitted that the bar under Sec. 18 of the S.C./S.T. Act would also not be applicable in the present case as the appellant was not even present on the spot even as per the FIR. Thus, the appellant be released on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that it is true that in the FIR there is no reference of any other person apart from the three named persons, however, in their statements recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. the witnesses have clearly mentioned the presence of three unknown persons. On a query made by this Court, if the present appellant's name is also taken by the accused persons, who were present on the spot in their memos prepared under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, counsel has submitted that there is no reference of presence of any other person on the spot, other than the three named accused persons namely Akram, Salim and Arman.