Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6192
1 M.Cr.C. No. 9829 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9829 of 2025
MUKESH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
None present for applicant even in the second round.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of CrPC / Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,
2023, has been filed against the order dated 24.12.2024 and 26.12.2024 passed by
Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), District Datia (M.P.) in Special Case No.22 of
2003. By order dated 24.12.2024 the right of applicant to lead defence evidence
was closed, and by order dated 26.12.2024, applicant was declared absconding
and judgment in respect of other co-accused persons was delivered.
2. None for applicant even in the second round.
3. Looking to the nature of controversy, this Court decided to decide this
application after going through the record.
4. By order dated 24.12.2024, prayer made by counsel for applicant for grant
of time to lead defence evidence was rejected. While closing the right of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6192
applicant, it was observed that the case was fixed for final arguments and multiple
opportunities were granted to accused persons to lead defence evidence, but in
spite of that, they did not lead evidence. The trial was pending in respect of an
incident which took place on 24.03.2004 and thus case was pending for the last 20
years, and no more opportunity could be granted and accordingly, the accused
persons were directed to argue the case finally. From the order-sheet, it appears
that counsel for co-accused Vanmali Kushwah concluded his final arguments,
whereas Shri K.K. Shrivastava, who was appearing for the other co-accused,
could not conclude because the court working hours were over. Thereafter, the
case was fixed for 26.12.2024 for further arguments.
5. On 26.12.2024, in spite of repeated calls, applicant as well as co-accused
Baldau did not appear, and accordingly, they were declared absconding and
warrant of arrest was issued. At that time, counsel for applicant moved an
application for deferment of the case on the ground of pendency of M.Cr.C. No.
53941 of 2024. The application was rejected and judgment was pronounced in
respect of other co-accused persons.
6. Applicant, in this application, has taken a ground that the trial court has not
examined the complainant, and application filed under Section 311 of CrPC was
rejected, against which M.Cr.C.No.36343 of 2024 was pending, and thus, the trial
court should have adjourned the case.
7. From the record, it is clear that M.Cr.C. No.36343 of 2024 was already
allowed much prior to 24.12.2024. On 24.12.2024, a contention was made that
M.Cr.C.No. 53941 of 2024 is pending whereas since there was no stay in
M.Cr.C.No.53941 of 2024, therefore, the trial court did not commit any mistake
in not adjourning the case, specifically when the trial was pending for the last 20
years. Even otherwise, if M.Cr.C.No.53941 of 2024 was pending, even then,
applicant had no legitimate right to remain absent from trial court. It appears that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6192
the absence of applicant was with a solitary intention to avoid the delivery of
judgment. Thus, in absence of bona fide reason behind the absence of applicant
before the trial court, this Court is of considered opinion that the trial court did
not commit any mistake by declaring applicant as absconding and delivering the
judgment in respect of other co-accused persons.
8. Even otherwise, in the present case also, none appeared for applicant even
in the second round.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that the trial court did not
commit any mistake by rejecting the prayer for adjournment as well as did not
commit any mistake by declaring applicant as absconding.
10. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
