LatestLaws.

com

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

CRA-2455-2018
(JITENDRA PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

6
Jabalpur, Dated : 02-05-2018
Shri R.B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.K. Mishra, learned GA for the respondent
No.1/State.
Whereabouts of the respondent No.2 prosecutrix are not

h
es
known. She has left the residence in search of work to Delhi
as per the Panchnama dated 05/04/2018.

ad
This application under Section 14-A of the Scheduled

Pr
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (for Brevity " the Act 1989") has been filed by the
a
hy

appellant with regard to Crime No.125/17, registered at

Police Station Shahgarh, District Sagar, in connection with
ad

offences under Sections 376(2)(jha), 506 of IPC and Sections

M

3(1)(b)(ii), 3(2)(5-ka) of the Act, 1989. It would be

appropriate to mention here that, the appellant is a minor.
of

His age has been determined by the Special Judge under

rt

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sagar vide order dated 26/12/2017.

ou

However, later it was ordered that, keeping in view the

nature of offence, the appellant is being tried as adult in
C

Special Case No.295/17.

h

The prosecution story, in brief is that, the minor

ig

prosecutrix along with her aunt had gone to attend the call of
H

nature. The accused allegedly forcibly committed sexual

intercourse with her. When she shouted, her sister-in-law and
aunt came to the scene of crime and they slapped the
accused/appellant. The appellant fled away from the place of
incident. On lodging the FIR, crime was registered and
subsequently after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
for offences under Sections 376(2)(jha), 506 of IPC, Section
3(1)(b)(ii), 3(2)(5-ka) of the "Act, 1989" and Sections 3 & 4, 7
& 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act,
2012.
 LatestLaws.com

On behalf of the appellant, it is stated that earlier

application for bail was dismissed by the Juvenile Court and
subsequent appeal under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection) Act, 2015 was also dismissed on
18/12/2017.
The learned trial Court held that, it is a case to be tried
as a regular case before the Revenue Court treating the
appellant to be an adult. The appellant further submitted
that, statements of the witnesses have been recorded. All the

h
witnesses have turned hostile including the prosecutrix

es
(PW/1). Therefore, the appellant prays for regular bail.

ad
On behalf of the respondent/State, the bail application

Pr
has been opposed. It is stated that the prosecutrix has lodged
the FIR. The medical report is positive. No reason is found to
a
discard the same.
hy

Vide order dated 26/12/2017, the learned Special Judge

ad

under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 has held the appellant to be

minor i.e. less than 18 years. The copy of the statement of the
M

prosecutrix deposed on 23/03/2018 does not disclose the

of

name of the appellant. At the other hand, she states that the
age of the perpetrator of crime was about 30 years. The
rt

petitioner is in custody since 18/07/2017. Therefore, further

ou

keeping him in custody is not in the interest of justice.

C

Keeping in view the above circumstances, this appeal is

h

allowed. If the appellant furnishes a bail bond in the sum of

ig

Rs.50,000/-(Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in

H

the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he shall

be released on bail.
Before parting with the order, it would be appropriate to
hold that, if any compensation has been given to the
prosecutrix under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 by the State
Government, the same may be recovered from her.
Copy of the same be sent to District Magistrate, Sagar
for recovery of the amount.
Appellant is directed to mark appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 30/08/2018.
 LatestLaws.com

C.C. as per rules.

(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)

JUDGE

Digitally signed by RASHMI

RONALD VICTOR
Date: 2018.05.04 11:55:37
-07'00'

RS

h
es
ad
Pr
a
hy
ad
M
of
rt
ou
C
h
ig
H