SAHDEV YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-29
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on
July 27,2022
Sahdev Yadav
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL, J. -
(1.)The appellant has filed this appeal under Sec. 14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dtd. 4/7/2022 passed by trial Court; whereby, application of appellant preferred under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Appellant has been arrested on 29/06/2022 by Police Station Umari, District Bhind, in connection with Crime No.26/2022 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Ss. 392, 323, 294, 147 of IPC, Ss. 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
As per prosecution case, on 22/2/2022 complainant Munesh Kumar Dohare lodged a typed complaint that in his tractor trolley, he had kept washing machine, LED TV, Mixer Grinder, five press etc. He was going along with Rahul Yadav and Raj Yadav from Govt. Higher Secondary School at about 9.45 am, at that juncture Kuldeep Yadav, Sachin Yadav, Rinku, Gautam Yadav, Kallu Yadav, Jeetu, Kanha, Sudeep, Ramu, Sahdev and 2-3 others after stopping the tractor trolley, tried to loot the aforesaid articles, abused the complainant with filthy language and committed Marpeet with him. When Rahul and Raj intervened in the matter, they were also beaten. On his report, aforesaid offences have been registered against 13-14 persons. Appellant was arrested on 29/6/2022.
(2.)Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant is innocent and falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 29/6/2022. He undertakes to cooperate in investigation/trial and to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Conclusion of trial will take some time. Co-accused Gautam Yadav, Sudeep Singh, Jeetu alias Jitendra, Sachin Yadav, Yogesh alias Kanha, Yogendra Singh alias Kallu, Ramu Singh and Rinku @ Upendra Singh Yadav have been extended benefit of bail by this Court by order dtd. 2/6/2022, 21/6/2022, 28/6/2022 and 13/7/2022 passed in Cr.A. 4743/2022, Cr.A. 5203/2022, CrA 5436/2022 and Cr.A. 5691/2022. On such premises, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for bail.
(3.)Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Both the Advocates are heard. Case diary perused.
Appellant has been arrested on 29/06/2022 by Police Station Umari, District Bhind, in connection with Crime No.26/2022 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Ss. 392, 323, 294, 147 of IPC, Ss. 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
As per prosecution case, on 22/2/2022 complainant Munesh Kumar Dohare lodged a typed complaint that in his tractor trolley, he had kept washing machine, LED TV, Mixer Grinder, five press etc. He was going along with Rahul Yadav and Raj Yadav from Govt. Higher Secondary School at about 9.45 am, at that juncture Kuldeep Yadav, Sachin Yadav, Rinku, Gautam Yadav, Kallu Yadav, Jeetu, Kanha, Sudeep, Ramu, Sahdev and 2-3 others after stopping the tractor trolley, tried to loot the aforesaid articles, abused the complainant with filthy language and committed Marpeet with him. When Rahul and Raj intervened in the matter, they were also beaten. On his report, aforesaid offences have been registered against 13-14 persons. Appellant was arrested on 29/6/2022.
(2.)Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant is innocent and falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 29/6/2022. He undertakes to cooperate in investigation/trial and to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Conclusion of trial will take some time. Co-accused Gautam Yadav, Sudeep Singh, Jeetu alias Jitendra, Sachin Yadav, Yogesh alias Kanha, Yogendra Singh alias Kallu, Ramu Singh and Rinku @ Upendra Singh Yadav have been extended benefit of bail by this Court by order dtd. 2/6/2022, 21/6/2022, 28/6/2022 and 13/7/2022 passed in Cr.A. 4743/2022, Cr.A. 5203/2022, CrA 5436/2022 and Cr.A. 5691/2022. On such premises, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for bail.
(3.)Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Both the Advocates are heard. Case diary perused.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.