Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnij Jadoun vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2401
1 MCRC-2091-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2091 of 2025
RAMNIJ JADOUN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri K K Prajapati - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Ravi Choudhary- Advocate for the respondent [COMP].
ORDER
This is the second bail application filed by the petitioner under Section
483 of B.N.S.S/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of
bail. His earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court
vide order dated 29.08.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.36986 of 2024.
The petitioner has been arrested on 03.04.2024 by Police Station
Maharajpura District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.247 of
2024 registered for offence under Section 302 of IPC.
The allegation against the applicant is that he committed murder of his
wife by strangulation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further
submitted that the entire prosecution story hinges upon circumstantial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2401
2 MCRC-2091-2025
evidence and there is no eye-witness of the incident. It is further argued that
motive to commit crime has not been proved and the marriage has been
completed peacefully sixteen years. It is further argued that the daughter of
the deceased was present on the spot, however she did not support the story
of protection. It is further argued that merely allegations are levelled in the
FIR as well as statement of witnesses that since the present applicant was
having extramarital affair, therefore, he has committed the incident. The
petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2024 and the trial is moving at a snail's
pace. It is also submitted that speedy trail is a concomitant of the
fundamental right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The applicant is ready and willing to abide by any condition which
may be imposed by this Court in case of grant of bail. On the basis of the
above submissions, the present applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. To
bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mula Devi and
Another Vs. State of Uttrakhand reported in (2008) 14 SCC 511.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed
the bail application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the
applicant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted
that a quarrel took place between him and his wife on 02.04.2024 at about 1-
3 am in the night and on being enraged, he committed murder of his wife by
strangulating her. Trial is in progress. Looking to the gravity of offence, no
case for grant of bail is made out.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2401
3 MCRC-2091-2025
The law with regard to bail during trial is well settled. The nature of
accusation, the punishment for offence charge sheeted and the punishment in
case of conviction are some of relevant consideration. Law is clear that detail
appreciation of evidence cannot be done at the time of considering the bail in
heinous offences.
The allegation against the petitioner is of committing murder of his
wife by strangulating her. The presence of the applicant in the home at the
time of incident is not denied by him. Other prosecution witnesses including
his own daughter had prima facie established his presence at home. The post-
mortem examination report confirms that she was strangulated to death. The
trial is in progress and all the material pertaining to circumstantial evidence
shall be considered by the trial Court. Looking to the seriousness of the
offence, the prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioner on account of delayed
trial, gets outweighed. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation and
also considering the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 161 of
CrPC, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
In view of above, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly,
the present bail application stands dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
