RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention. of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed on behalf of appellant Raj Kumar in crime no.06/2017 registered by P.S.- Bijawar, District-Chhatarpur under Sections 341, 323, 294, 506, 427, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2) (v) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhatarpur, in Special Case No. 58/2017. As per the FIR, respondent no.2 Deshraj Ahirwar is a member of Scheduled Caste. He was a member of Janpad Panchayat, Bijawar. At about 11.30 a.m. on 05.01.2017, he had gone to Village-Mangalpurva with Sub-Engineer, Alok Khare and Employment Assistant, Dharmdas Ahirwar. At that time, appellant Rajkumar asked the Sub-Engineer and Employment Assistant to leave the spot, as he wanted to sort out victim Deshraj Ahirwar. Thereafter, appellant Rajkumar and co- accused persons Devendra, Anurag and Dharmendra surrounded the victim. They snatched away his two mobile phones and threw them on the ground. They destroyed the mobile phones by trampling upon them. They filthily abused the victim and addressed him with reference to his scheduled caste and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, all accused persons beat up the victim with sticks. As per the MLC report, the victim has suffered nine contusions and lacerations caused by hard and blunt objects. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the name of appellant does not figure in the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 himself and omnibus allegations of assault have been made against him. The victim has specifically stated under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that co-accused Dharmendra had assaulted him on left foot with sticks. As a result, he fell down. Thereafter, co-accused Anurag and appellant Rajkumar hit him with sticks in the right leg. It has been submitted that none of the contusions or lacerations suffered by the victim are on any vital p of the body and no sharp edged weapon was used in the offence. Actually, there is a counter case registered in the matter and respondent no. 2 Deshraj Ahirwar had fired a shot on the spot. As a result, appellant Rajkumar had sustained a gun-shot injury in his arm. It has also been submitted that the appellant has been custody since 31.03.2017. It has further been submitted that similarly placed co-accused Dharmendra and Anurag have been released on bail by order dated 10.07.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.1914/2017 & M.Cr.C.No.2044/2017. Therefore, it has been prayed that the appellant be also released on bail. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent State and the counsel for the objector on the other hand have opposed the application mainly on the ground that the victim had suffered as many as 9 injuries. However, they have conceded that the case of the appellant Rajkumar does not differ from that of co- accused Anurag who has already been released on bail. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly: