GURNIHAL SINGH PIRZADA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated, that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He has further stated that the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner does not make out any offence againt him.

(2.) BEFORE going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record certain documents, pertaining to the condition of the health of the petitioner. He has placed on record a copy of the order dated 9.23.2004 of the learned Special Judge, Ropar. It has been stated in the order that as per the application filed by the prosecution for further remand of the accused/petitioner, copy of the report of S.M.O., Central Jail, Patiala was placed before the Duty Magistrate. The S.M.O., Central Jail, Patiala has stated that the petitioner was suffering from acute attack of PIVD and further, he was unfit to travel.

(3.) THE petitioner was arrested on 22.1.2004. Due to his physical condition, he was admitted to the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh on 25.1.2004. On 26.1.2004, he was produced before the Duty Magistrate Shri Ranjan Khuller, J.M.I.C., Kharar, on a stretcher. A doctor from the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh was also present. On 26.1.2004, the petitioner was admitted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. On 1.2.2004, he was sent to Central Jail, Patiala after being discharged from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala.