Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

    Arun Kumar Jain v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr

    CRA-348-2017 (ARUN KUMAR JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR) 04-04-2017 Shri Shishir Saxena, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Mohd. Irshad, Panel Lawyer for Respondent/ State. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 14(a)(2) of the scheduled castes & scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 (for short, the 'Act'), being aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.2017 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Gwalior, whereby bail application of the appellant under Section

    438 CrPC has been dismissed. FIR bearing Crime No.56/2016 has been lodged against the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1) 1(3), 2(5) of the Act, at Police Station- G.R.P., N.G., Gwalior. It was alleged that the appellant and another employee were doing the work at signal in Panihar Station and at that time the appellant told the complainant to go with him in engine. They were sitting in cabin at that time the appellant caught her waist and told the complainant to allow him to kiss her, he will not harass her, when complainant tried to flee away then the appellant stopped her on the door. On such allegation, the GRP Police Station registered a criminal case against the present appellant at Crime No.56/2016 for the offence stated herein above. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Looking to the allegation made against the appellant, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, this appeal for releasing the appellant on anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (SUNIL KUMAR AWASTHI) JUDGE

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Arun Kumar Jain v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr
    (Apr 4, 2017)