ASHARAM BAPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is being tried before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for offences punishable under Sections 370(4), 342, 354A, 376(2)(f), 376D, 506, 509/34, 120B, Indian Penal Code, Sections 23 and 26, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Sections 5(F)/6, 5(G)/6, 7/8, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(2.) As earlier application for bail filed by him having been declined, a second application was moved before the Trial Court which too came to be rejected by the said Court. The matter was then taken up before the High Court who has concurred with the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed the plea for bail. The present special leave petition calls in question the correctness of the said order.

(3.) When this petition initially came up before us on 15.10.2014 Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that although several witnesses for the prosecution had already been examined at the trial, the petitioner shall be satisfied if he is permitted to refresh his application for enlargement on bail after the examination of the material witnesses. The prosecution has it is common ground named six material witnesses in terms of a list filed before this Court, two out of whom have already been examined and cross-examined while the third is still under cross-examination, although the petitioner's counsel has concluded the cross examination on his part. This implies that there are still three other witnesses apart from the one who is under cross-examination that need to be examined at the trial. Mr. Khurshid's submission that the petitioner will be satisfied if he is allowed to refresh his application for enlargement on bail after examination of the material witnesses clearly implied that the application for bail on merit was as good as withdrawn till such time the material witnesses were examined before the Trial Court. What had all the same been argued by Mr. Khurshid was that the medical condition of the petitioner called for immediate surgery for which purpose he had placed reliance upon a certificate issued by Dr. Maheep Singh Gaur. It was argued that the petitioner would like to be evaluated at Kumud Chawla Gamma Knife Centre, Goodwill Hospital and Research Centre, NOIDA. We had in view of this submission made at the Bar directed constitution of a Medical Board by the Director of AIIMS to review the medical papers relevant to the petitioner's present condition and to submit a report as to whether there was any need for surgery as suggested by the petitioner's doctor. We had left it open to the Medical Board to call the petitioner for a clinical examination should if it considered necessary to do so.