Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 597 (MP)

Shriram v. State of M. P.

2015-05-18

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2015
ORDER Waghmare, J. -- 1. These two revision petitions are dealt together since they are filed by the same petitioner and pertains to handing over the custody of Shriram to his mother Anarbai. 2. By this Criminal Revision No.140/2014 under Article 397 of the CrPC, AnarBai, mother of the petitioner Shriram a mentally challenged person, has challenged the impugned order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, District Khargone under Sessions Trial No.71/12, submitting that the petitioner Shriram was a mentally challenged person and the petitioner was not being properly looked after in the custody and prayed for grant of custody to her. The application has been rejected by impugned order dated 8.1.2014 and hence the present petition. 3. I.A. No.901/2014 pertains to handing over the custody to the mother and for the stay of proceedings in the Court below. 4. Whereas, Criminal Revision No.145/14 has been filed by Amarbai being aggrieved by order dated 13.1.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, District Khargone, under Sessions Trial No.269/13. Whereby the petition was being proceeded for offences under section 330,437,439 of the CrPC and the petitioner’s mother has prayed for grant of custody since the applicant was a mentally challenged person. 5. I.A. No.941/2014 pertains to handing over the custody to the mother and for the stay of proceedings in the Court below. 6. On considering the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent/State, it has found that this Court had directed the respondent/State to file a report regarding the present status of the applicant Shriram. The report of the Thana Prabhari, Sub Jail, Mandleshwar, District Khargone dated 30.4.2015 and the opinion of the Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, M.Y. Hospital, Indore dated 25.4.2015 has been received. 7. Counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the applicant has been diagnosed with depression and psychotic features. He has been given proper treatment at the M.Y. Hospital. A board of 3 doctors was constituted to submit the report every two months as required by this Court and the Court below. Counsel prayed that the application may be dismissed. 8. On considering the above submissions, the impugned judgment, and the expert opinion which may be taken on record, I find that the applications cannot be allowed. A board of 3 doctors was constituted to submit the report every two months as required by this Court and the Court below. Counsel prayed that the application may be dismissed. 8. On considering the above submissions, the impugned judgment, and the expert opinion which may be taken on record, I find that the applications cannot be allowed. The Petitions are also required to be dismissed, primarily because the learned Judge of the Court below had categorically observed that when the applicant was released he has alleged to have committed grave offence like murder. Under these circumstances, it would be dangerous to set the applicant free. He is in proper custody and has been properly looked after by the jail authorities and in this view of the matter, the application cannot be allowed and the petitions are also dismissed since there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the trial Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations, both the petitions are dismissed as being without merits.