Dhanpat Kushwaha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Arguments heard upon the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of Dhanpat Kushwaha on 08.04.2019.

Case diary of Crime No. 128/2018 registered at Police Station, Lavkush Nagar District Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry of Prohibition Act, also perused.

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. First M.Cr.C. No. 31588/2018 was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.08.2018 with the liberty to file the afresh application after recording of the statements of parents of deceased.

It appears that the present application has been filed before recording of the aforesaid statements. It is submitted by applicant's counsel that applicant is confined in custody since 19.05.2018. He also filed the copies of order sheets of Sessions Trial No. 120/18 pending before the A.S.J. Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur (Shri Bharat Singh Rawat). Upon the basis of aforesaid order sheets, the counsel argued that the parents are not appearing before the Court and avoiding their presence for causing the delay. No any witness has been examined till today during the period of one year.

It appears from the order sheet that the case was received by the Sessions Court on 21.08.2018 and was made over to the A.S.J. Lavkush Nagar District Chhatarpur where the case was heard on 30.08.2018 and the trial Court framed the charges under Section 304-B alternative charge under Section 306 of IPC and also framed the charge under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 05.09.2018.

The Court fixed the case for recording of the evidence of witness Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by order dated 10.09.2018. On 26.10.2018 the summons of witness Nos. 1 and 2 were received after due service and the Court order to issue the bailable warrants worth Rs. 5,000/- each to the aforesaid two witnesses. Nothing has been stated in the order sheets regarding witness No.3, who also called for the aforesaid date 26.10.2018. On 16.01.2019 the Court again passed the order for issuing the bailable warrant worth of Rs.5,000/- each to the witness Nos. 1 and 2. The same order was passed on 07.02.2019 with a direction to call the explanation of concerned S.H.O. On 18.03.2018, the trial Court did not mention the status of service of the bailable warrant/summons and mechanically passed the order to issue the process against witness by saying " ससकक अननपसससतपपरसरननससर तलब" हह

The applicant also filed the copies of remaining order sheets with the document No. 18744/19. on 03.10.2019. On 25.04.2019 the Court pass the order to issue summons to the witness Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The same order was repeated on 15.05.2019, 03.07.2019, 06.08.2019 and 11.09.2019. It is very surprising that previously the order was related to bailable warrant while the Court changed the aforesaid order without assigning any reason in the order sheet, Definitely this attitude shows the negligence of the judicial officer. The concerned Judge is not sincere about the proceedings of the case and the case is left upon the mercy of the employees of clerical cadre. The order sheets after 25.04.2019 shows that the Court ordered to issue the summons while in margin of every order sheets a remark has been mentioned by the Reader that " जमसनतक रसररट जसरक".

Therefore, it appears that the applicant is unnecessary confined in the custody and the trial Court is not sincere about the early disposal of the case. The parents of the deceased also having the knowledge regarding the pendency of the case but they did not appear after due service of summon.

In the aforesaid situation, the application is allowed. Applicant Dhanpat Kushwaha be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

One copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Chhatarpur with the direction to inspect the some records of the present Presiding Officer including the record of this Court and if it is found that the trial Judge is habitual to show the negligence then he will be free to propose the appropriate action against the concerned Officer.