SANJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has 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. 2/12/2023 passed by Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989] (hereinafter would be referred as to the ''Act of 1989), Guna whereby bail application under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. of appellant has been rejected.

(2.) The appellant has been arrested on 26/11/2023 relating to FIR at Crime No.905 of 2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Guna, District Guna (M.P) for offences punishable Ss. 294, 323, 324, 506 of IPC and Ss. 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 and added Sec. 326 of IPC. As per the case of prosecution, Amar Lal Kori reported to PS Kotwali, Guna on 20/10/2023 that on 19/10/2023 around 11:30 in the night, he was guarding his vegetable shop at Purani Gala Mandi. Accused appellant Santosh Sharma was consuming liquor. He objected to consumption of liquor at Gala Mandi. Accused started abusing him in filthy language with referring to his caste. He objected to abuses. Accused assaulted him with knife. He sustained injury on his head and right hand. Accused threatened to kill him and fled away. On such allegations, PS Kotwali, District Guna registered FIR at Crime No.905 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Ss. 294, 323, 324, 506 of IPC and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989. On X-ray examination, fracture on right thumb of complainant was found, therefore, offence under Sec. 326 of IPC was added. Appellant was arrested on 26/11/2023. One knife was recovered at his instance. On completion of investigation, Final Report has been submitted on 12/12/2023.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the appeal, submits that minor scuffle over the objection to consumption of liquor was aggravated. Both the parties have assaulted each other due to which the complainant sustained minor injury, which was found to be fracture of right thumb. No criminal antecedent is reported against the appellant. Appellant is a vegetable vender and is the sole bread earner of his family. There is no likelihood of his absconsion leaving behind his family, home and profession. No offence punishable under provisions of the Act of 1989 is made out against the appellant. There is no likelihood of his tampering with the evidence as both the parties belong to same socio-economic status. No further custodial interrogation of appellant is required in the matter. Trial would take time to conclude. Therefore, appellant may be extended the benefit of bail.