Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26350
1 MCRC-47500-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47500 of 2025
DHARMENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Hemant Singh Rana - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking grant of bail
after dismissal of earlier one as withdrawn vide order dated 09.04.2025
passed in M.Cr.C. No.14612 of 2025 by the coordinate Bench.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 01.09.2024 in connection with
Crime No. 109/1995 registered at Police Station Gormi District Bhind for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304 B, 302, 34 of IPC.
3. As per prosecution case, 03.06.1994 the applicant/accused
Dharmendra (husband of the deceased Maya Devi) had informed the police
station that his pregnant wife Maya had been suffering from bleeding for
about one and a half months and that she died at around 2:00 a.m. on the
night in question. Based on this information, Police Station Gorami
registered Merg Intimation Report No. 12/1994. On the basis of the inquest
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26350
2 MCRC-47500-2025
proceedings, on 03.06.1994, a criminal case was registered and investigation
was initiated against the applicant/accused and other co-accused persons for
offences punishable under Sections 498, 304B, 201, and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The applicant/accused is alleged to have demanded a
motorcycle as dowry from his wife, the deceased Maya Devi, and, upon
failure to meet that demand, subjected her to cruelty and harassment. It is
further alleged that he killed her and, without informing her family members,
cremated her body in the courtyard of the house in order to destroy evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the
husband of the deceased. The marriage between the applicant and the
deceased was solemnized approximately 30-35 years ago. It is further
submitted that on similar allegations, the father of the applicant has already
been acquitted vide judgment dated 20.02.2016 passed by the learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. It is contended that the investigation in the
present case has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed;
therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The
applicant has been in custody since 01.09.2024 and the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude. The applicant is a permanent resident of
District Bhind, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering
with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, a prayer has been made to
enlarge the applicant on bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed
the application and prayed for its rejection.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26350
3 MCRC-47500-2025
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
period of custody suffered by the applicant which is more than one year and
one month, the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future,
and keeping in view that prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the
concept of personal liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail
to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, this bail
application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand
Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court for his appearance before it on the dates given by the
concerned Court.
9. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency
of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26350
4 MCRC-47500-2025
without further reference to the Bench;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
