Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Samadhiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2020
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-2518-2020
(Vivek Samadhiya Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 24/01/2020
Shri Awadhesh Parashar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor
for the respondent/State.
Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the complainant.
Case-diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is second bail application u/S.439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25/11/2019 passed in MCRC No.48603/2019.
The applicant has been arrested on 04/11/2019 by Police Station - Dehat Bhind, District- Bhind in connection with Crime No.515/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 419/420 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that the applicant who is the brother-in-law of the complainant along with other co-accused persons treated the complainant with 2 cruelty and harassment due to non-satisfaction of demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing the plot. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he is not concerned with the case directly or indirectly. Charge sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required in the matter. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a youth of 19 years of age who has no criminal past alleged against him. The applicant is in custody since 04/11/2019 and he is a permanent resident of District Bhind. There is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the period of custody of the applicant which is not sufficient as well as role played by the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail to the applicant is 3 made out at this stage.
Accordingly, this second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the present applicant stands rejected.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR 2020.01.28 18:09:55 +05'30'