BACHUBHAI MAFATBHAI SUTHAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is indeed one of those few cases which demonstrate as to at what dare devil extent the prisoner can go for fabricating false medical certificate, case papers, etc and that too of Sir JJ Group of Hospitals, Bombay, to dupe the High Court for obtaining bail and/or interim bail and/or getting it extended by invoking its false sympathy on the feigned medical ground of undergoing the special treatment for his cardiac ailment, and yet, fortunately as the things would have been, just by stroke of the sheer hand of providence, the same came to be detected because of the little care and circumspection evinced by this Court at the time of further extending the interim bail by insisting upon the verification regarding the truthfulness and genuineness of the medical case papers through the instrumentality of the responsible police officer

(2.) To narrate few relevant facts leading to filing of the present Misc. Criminal Application to extend the bail, it may briefly be stated that the prisoner Bachubhai Mafatbhai Suthar a practising Orthopedic Surgeon, running a Hospital in the name of "Navdeep Hospital" at Modasa, was tried alongwith one another accused viz., Vishnubhai N. Suthar, working as his Compounder, on the charge of murdering Thakorebhai Haribhai Thakkar, in Sessions Case No. 309/91, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 read with Section 120-B 0f the Indian Penal Code, wherein at the end of trial, the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad by judgment and order dated 27-5-1992 convicted and sentenced both of them awarding RI for life. This was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 652/ 92. When the said appeal came up for admission before this Court (Coram: V. H Bhairavia & S. M. Soni, JJ.) on 28-5-1993, the same was admitted, refusing the prayer for bail.

(3.) Now despite the fact that though the aforesaid affidavit was duly served upon the petitioner to enable him to meet with the situation, not only no reply has been filed but orally even no attempt has been made to controvert the specific allegations made in the said affidavit. Therefore, in view of the said affidavit of Mr. Zala, further hearing of this petition was adjourned to 10-2-1994. On' 10-2-1994, once again, at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the hearing was adjourned to 15-2-1994 and simultaneously the jail authorities were also directed to keep the petitioner Bachubhai present before this Court at 11.00 a.m on that day.