HC allows bail appeal of MANIT Director
| Date :15-Mar-2019 |
Legal Correspondent,
The High Court said that the arrest of the MANIT Director (appellant) will serve no purpose. It will only tarnish his image. The appellant is entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, this appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside. It is ordered that if the appellant Dr Narendra Singh Raghuwanshi surrenders before police within 15 days or arrested by the investigating officer, then he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond and surety bond each for a sum of Rs 25,000. If he fails to do so, effect of this order shall be vacated automatically
IN THE matter related to bail appeal filed by Dr Narendra Singh Raghuwanshi, Director of Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal, a single bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice J P Gupta said ‘in view of facts and circumstances there is no need to arrest the appellant and on behalf of the State, it is not contended that his arrest is required for effective investigation or he is not cooperating in investigation. Therefore, no purpose will be served from arrest of the appellant except to tarnish his image. The appellant is entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail.
Hence, this appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside. It is ordered that if appellant accused Dr Narendra Singh Raghuwanshi surrenders before the police station within 15 days or arrested by the investigating officer or the arresting authority, then he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond and surety bond each for a sum of Rs 25,000. If he fails to do so, effect of this order shall be vacated automatically. The appellant accused is directed to join investigation immediately and cooperate with the investigation process. He shall further abide by other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of CrPC. It is made clear that any observation made in the order shall not influence proceeding of the trial court in any way.’
This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated on February 9, 2019, passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhopal, Bhopal district in bail application whereby the court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1/19 Police Station AJK, Bhopal, offences registered under Section 294 of IPC and under Section 3 (1) (da) r/w Sec. 3 (1) (dha) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On behalf of the appellant accused it is contended that against the appellant on the basis of application filed under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Bhopal, a FIR of aforesaid offences has been registered and the appellant is apprehensive to get arrested on the strength of the application filed under Section 156 (3) of CrPC, in which it is stated that the appellant is the Director of Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, and the complainant works as an Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Technology Department of the said Institute and belongs to Scheduled Caste community, the benefit of promotion given earlier was withdrawn illegally, about which, he submitted so many representations to the Directors of the Institute, including the appellant. On September 24, 2018, when he went to meet the appellant he was told to come after two days then he again went on September 26, 2018, to his office and discussed his grievance.
The appellant despite considering his grievance said that the he must not waste his time and nothing can be done in his case and used filthy language denoting his caste to humiliate him. When he resisted, the appellant again started abusing with derogatory remarks using his caste and threatened to kill him and to take his service. The foul language was used by the appellant out of the chamber near the gate in public view and the incident was witnessed by one Sunil. About the aforesaid conduct of the appellant, he filed a complaint with the Police AJK, Bhopal, and also reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, and other higher authorities but no action has been taken by police, therefore, the application has been filed to issue direction to register FIR against the appellant and investigate the matter. It is further submitted that on account of failing in legal litigation to restore his promotion, the complainant has made false allegation against the appellant maliciously to take revenge from the appellant. While the complaint was made by the complainant to police. Police enquired and found that the allegations are false and just to create pressure on the Director with regard to dispute of pending promotion before the court as written by In-charge Police Station AJK, Bhopal, vide letter dated on December 6, 2018, to SP, Bhopal, (AJK) and without disclosing consequences of the inquiry, application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC was filed. Consequently, Special Judge in absence of the fact of this inquiry has ordered to register the case. Mere registration of the case is not amount that the prosecution has prima facie case against the appellant. Inquiry report prepared after taking all the relevant witnesses exonerated the appellant.
Therefore, merely on the application direction has been given by the learned Special Judge. It cannot be said that there is a prima facie case against the appellant to commit the offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to arrest the appellant as no purpose will be served except to tarnish his image or support unscrupulous complainant to settle their score by ways of malicious criminal proceedings. Hence, the appellant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Therefore, this appeal be accepted and he be released on anticipatory bail. Senior Advocate Manish Datt with Advocate Deepak Raghuwanshi and Pradeep Hazari appeared on behalf of the appellant, while Government Advocate Som Mishra for the respondent State and Advocate Siddharth Radhelal Gupta for the respondent/ complainant.