Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1236 (MP)

Pradhuman Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-12-10

S.K.PALO

body2015
JUDGMENT : S.K. Palo, J. Heard. 2. This is the second application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for regular bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.09.2015. 3. The applicant has been arrested on 26.06.2015 in connection with Criminal Case No. 9984/2011 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 23 and 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 4. On the complaint of respondent No. 2-complainant, a Criminal Case No. 9984/2011 is pending for trial against the applicant before the JMFC, Gwalior under Sections 23 and 24 of Domestic Violence Act. 5. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the complainant-respondent No. 2 is the wife of the applicant. In Criminal Case No. 9948/2011, the applicant remained absent, therefore, he was declared as absconded on 14.02.2014 and perpetual warrant was issued against him. In execution of the warrant, the applicant was arrested on 26.06.2015. Since then he is in custody. Application for bail filed before the trial Court was dismissed on 04.07.2015. Subsequently, the applicant filed an application for regular bail before this Court, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 11.09.2015. Another application for regular bail was dismissed by the second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior on 30.09.2015. 6. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The allegation levelled against him by the complainant is nothing but to harass the applicant. Because of certain personal problems, the applicant could not attend the Court, therefore, arrest warrant was issued. Applicant aged about 33 years. He is in custody. If he is not released on bail, his future would be ruined, therefore, the applicant prayed to grant regular bail. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application for regular bail. 8. On behalf of the complainant, application is vehemently opposed stating that the applicant remained absent on 09.05.2013, 02.09.2013 and 31.10.2013. Therefore, when execution of non-bailable warrant could not be effected, on 14.02.2014 the trial Court declared him absconded. The applicant has been constantly evading the orders of the Court. In the family Court also the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not being concluded because of absence of the applicant. Similarly in the criminal case offence under Section 498-A of IPC is also not concluded. Therefore, the complainant prayed for rejection of this application. 9. The applicant has been constantly evading the orders of the Court. In the family Court also the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not being concluded because of absence of the applicant. Similarly in the criminal case offence under Section 498-A of IPC is also not concluded. Therefore, the complainant prayed for rejection of this application. 9. Counsel for the applicant referred Section 436-A of Cr.P.C.. The provision of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. is reproduced here for reference:- "436-A. Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties: 10. Section 23 read with Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine. That means the maximum sentence provided for the offence is one year. The present applicant is in custody since 26.06.2015. A person who has completed detention for a period of six months may be released on bail. 11. In the present petition, the applicant has not completed six months of his detention. Therefore, this application is dismissed.