MONA CRISTEENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this first criminal appeal under Sec. 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dtd. 5/12/2023 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Guna rejecting application for anticipatory bail filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. The appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 916 of 2023 registered by Police Station Kotwali, District Guna (M.P.) for offences punishable under Ss. 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) As per the case of prosecution, Nilesh Jatav, aged 23 years, reported to PS Guna Kotwali that on 25/10/2023 around 06:30 in the evening he was sitting on the courtyard of his house. Mona Ishai (appellant No.1), Boby Ishai, Ankit Ishai (appellant No.3) and Raju Ishai (appellant No.2) came there and started abusing in filthy language with referring to his caste. As he objected to abuses, Ankit Ishai assaulted him with knife. His left ear was injured. Bobi assaulted him with lathi. Raju gave kick on his abdomen. Bobi also slapped him. His brother Neeraj and mother Sagun Bai tried to rescue him. Accused assaulted them. They also sustained injuries. On such allegations, PS Guna Kotwali registered FIR at Crime No. 916 of 2023 for offences punishable under Ss. 294, 323, 324, 506, 34 of IPC and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against appellants Mona, Bobi, Ankit and Raju. On completion of investigation, final report was submitted on 22/11/2023. Learned counsel for the appellants, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the appeal, submits that despite cooperating in the investigation, Investigation

(3.) Officer had filed charge sheet without giving any intimation to the appellants to appear before the trial Court. The appellants are apprehending their arrest as they could not appear before the trial Court on the date of cognizance. Learned counsel further submits that intimation does not contain the date of issuance as well as date of appearance of appellants before the trial Court with regard to filing of charge-sheet. Learned counsel submits that no offence punishable u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellants. There is no likelihood of their absconsion leaving behind their family and home. Final Report has been submitted, therefore, there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence. Trial would take time to conclude. Therefore, appellants may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned counsel for State opposes the anticipatory bail and submits that after issuance of notice, the appellants did not appear before the trial Court at the time of filing of charge sheet.