Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadhesh Ram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-465-2018
(AWADHESH RAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 19-03-2018
Mr. Shafiquallah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.D. Khan, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
sh This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the e Cr.P.C. has been filed to assail the order dated 08.12.2017 ad passed by learned 1st ASJ, Bhopal in ST No.117/2013 wherein, Pr the application filed by the petitioner under Section 436 (A) a of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
hy
2. The factual matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass.
ad Crime No.117/2013 has been registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 M read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 66-C, 66-D, 43, of 43-A, 66 and 85 of the IT Act. It is alleged that on 04.04.2013, it was found that an amount of Rs.49,99,000/- was missing rt from the account of R.S. Chouhan of Narmada Forest ou Industries, Bhopal. During investigation by Cyber Crime C Branch, it was found that there was transaction of Rs.20 Lacs h in the account of petitioner Awadhesh Ram. The petitioner ig has no explanation in this regard. H
3. In M.Cr.C. No.1949/2014 vide order dated 22.09.2014, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to the condition that he shall deposit Rs.20 Lacs before the trial Court to make the loss good, which would be subject to final decision of the trial Court and this deposit of amount shall not be treated admission of guilt by the petitioner. It was further directed that petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two separate sureties of Rs.25,000/-, each to the satisfaction of the trial Cout.
4. The petitioner failed to deposit the same and did not furnish bail. An application for modification of the above order was filed, namely, M.Cr.C. No.183/2015 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2015. The petitioner then preferred SLP (Criminal) No.26836/2017 wherein it has been held that the bail granted to the petitioner would automatically stand cancelled for non compliance of the conditions for being released on bail.
5. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before sh learned trial Court which was dismissed vide order dated e 08.12.2017 on the ground that the petitioner failed to ad furnish the bail and there is sufficient evidence to hold Pr that it is an economic offence. Therefore, benefit of Section 436-A of the of the Cr.P.C. should not be given to a the petitioner.
hy
6. Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:
ad M âS.436-A Maximum period for which of an undertrial prisoner can be detained. - where a person has, during rt the period of investigation, inquiry or trial ou under this Code of an offence under any C law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as h ig one of the punishment under that law) undergone detention for a period H 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 wihtout sureties:
Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties: Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law.
Explanation. - In computing the period of sh detention under this section for granting e bail the period of detention passed due to ad delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.â Pr a hy
7. By the first proviso of Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., the ad Court has been given discretion for the reasons to be M recorded in writing can order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said of period.
rt
8. Learned trial Court has recorded the reasons and stated ou that the petitioner has been involved in the economic offences and keeping in view the earlier bail order was C not executed by him, benefit of Section 436-A of the h Cr.P.C. has been disallowed. ig
9. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the H decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (Criminal Appeal No.227/2018 decided on 06.02.2018) wherein it has been held that a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed in the case of In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658.
10. The new Section 436A inserted in the Code by CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2005 (25 of 2005) provides that where an under-trial prisoner other than the one accused of an offence for which death has been prescribed as one of punishments, has been under detention for a period sh extending to one-half of the maximum period of e imprisonment provided for the alleged offence, he shall ad be released on his personal bond, with or wihtout Pr sureties. However, the discretion has been conferred on the Court to refuse the same for reasons to be recorded a in writing. The Court may, after hearing the public hy prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in ad writing, order the continued detention of such person for M a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or of without sureties.
11. It is appropriate to mention here that bail was granted to rt the petitioner subject to the conditions but the petitioner ou failed to furnish bail. Nature of offence has been C described in the impugned order and learned ASJ h refused to grant benefit of Section 436A of the Cr.PC. ig with a reasoned order. Reasons mentioned by the Court H below seem to be correct and do not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2018.04.02 03:40:42 -07'00' H ig ks h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh