LAWS(P&H)-2009-11-42

JAI KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 26, 2009
Jai Krishan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the complainant, Jai Krishan for cancellation of bail granted to accused Narinder Kumar son of Shri Dharmpal in FIR No. 140 dated 28.11.2005 for offence under Sections 302/307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27/24/54/59 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused who is respondent No. 2 in this petition was one of the accused in the aforesaid FIR and was facing the trial. He filed bail application being Crl. Misc. No. 75824-M of 2006 which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 4.12.2006. The said accused filed the second bail application being Crl. Misc. No. 3746-M of 2008 before this Court. The bail was sought primarily on medical grounds. The accused pleaded that he is suffering from serious ailment and further custody of the accused would not be conducive to his health. This Court called a report from the Jail. One Dr. Karamjit Singh posted as Senior Medical Officer, Incharge Central Jail, Patiala submitted his report dated 5.10.2007 to the Superintendent, Incharge Central Jail, Patiala giving details of the treatments given to the accused from time to time. The said doctor also appeared in the Court alongwith the report. During the course of hearing, the doctor informed the court that the accused is suffering from heart ailment on account of old injury he suffered from seizure at varied durations. On a specific query by the court, the doctor gave his opinion that further custody of the accused might not be safe, in view of the history of seizure suffered by the accused. On the basis of the report and the medical opinion, this Court vide order dated 10.10.2007 granted bail to accused- respondent No. 2 with conditions that he will not influence the witnesses or threaten them or interfere with the trial. From the order dated 10.10.2007, it appears that the bail was granted only on medical grounds. The complainant in the present case has contested the claim of the accused of suffering from any serious ailment warranting grant of bail on medical grounds. In addition to the ground that the bail was procured by the accused in collusion with jail staff and the doctor, the complainant has also referred to DDRs entered by the police being DDR No. 30 dated 30.10.2007 under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and DDR No. 24 dated 21.11.2007. It has been alleged that even after securing the concession of bail by misrepresentation and manipulation, the accused has attempted to attack the complainant and other members of his family and threatened them with dire consequences if they deposed against the accused. The petitioner has also referred to the medical report which was obtained by him from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala. The report relates to the CT scan of the accused which indicates that the accused was normal and had no serious ailments. The complainant also alleged that the medical record has been manipulated by the accused and there are cuttings in the medical record maintained in the jail. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, this Court vide its order dated 15.2.2008, while issuing notice of motion constituted a Board of Doctors in the PGI to examine respondent No. 2-accused and to give opinion with regard to his past medical history and also whether there would be any danger to the life of the accused if he is kept in jail. Consequent upon the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the accused was examined by Board of Doctors and the report of the medical board vide communication dated 15.3.2008 was filed before this Court. This report was taken on record and bailable warrants were issued against respondent No. 2 vide order dated 24.3.2008. Vide subsequent order dated 9.4.2008, this Court on examination of the report of the Board of Doctors called for comments of Dr. Karamjit Singh, the doctor posted in the jail on whose report and statement, the accused was granted bail. Subsequently, Dr. Karamjit Singh was placed under suspension and he filed a writ petition being CWP No. 10525 of 2008 which was listed before a Division Bench of this Court and this application for cancellation of bail was also accordingly directed to be listed before the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 23.7.2008. Since the matter has again been allocated to the Single Bench, the application for cancellation of bail was listed before this Court. This Crl. Misc. Application for cancellation of bail was heard alongwith the main writ petition.

(2.) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the accused has secured bail by playing fraud and misrepresentation in connivance with Dr. Karamjit Singh, posted in the jail. At the time of grant of bail, Dr. Karamjit Singh had sent the medical report of the accused to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala which was produced before this Court which seems to have persuaded this Court to grant bail. The said report is reproduced here under :- "From GCM 38390-M D. No. 116 dated 5.10.07 From Senior Medical Officer, I/C Central Jail, Patiala To Superintendent, I/C Central Jail Patiala Subject : Medical report of UT Narinder Kumar Sharma S/o Dharampal On the above said subject, it is stated that the above said UT is k/c/o H/o MLL Case vide Reg. No. 65/22 dated 30.9.2005 and got injuries and X-rays & C.T. Scan was advised. He gave H/o Head Injury. Then the C/O H/O trauma Rt knee jt and H/o Head severe chest pain c vertigo and was referred to Ortho OPD and Medicine OPD Rajendra Hospital Patiala on 23.8.06 and on 1.11.2006 he again visited Medicine OPD Rajendra Hosp. Patiala vide OPD No. 28867 and ECG was done. There was T wave in L-III doubtful flattening of OVF, Repeat ECG to rule out Inf.Xischemia. He was diagnosed as a case of ANC Myalgia C Coronary artery disease ? He was referred to PGI Chandigarh on 11.12.06 for CT Scan head as CT Scan Medicine of Rajendra Hospital Patiala was not working order. He again visited PGI Chandigarh Neurology deptt. On 23.11.2007. He C/o Headache and again visited PGI Chandigarh on 7.2.07 and medicines were prescribed on PGI out patient Ticket No. 937523 dated 21.5.07. Pt gave H/o RSA 2 years back with head injury and n/o Seizures was present and E.E.G. was advised after C.T. Scan and pt. is still under the treatment of Neurology deptt. PGI Chandigarh and follow up treatment is being given. Pt. again visited Neurology deptt. PGI Chandigarh and had n/o seizures in last month and medicines were prescribed. Pt. again visited PGI on 27.7.2007 and on 24.8.07 and is under the treatment of Neurology Deptt. PGI, Chandigarh. Inspite of all this treatment from Neurology Deptt. PGI Chandigarh and follow up treatment at Central Jail Patiala Pt c/o severe headache c vertigo and again epileptic attack and chest pain during custody in jail. Note : Photocopy (attached) of original Medical Record is attached along Page (1-11) sd/- Senior Medical Officer, I/O Central Jail, Patiala 5.10.2007"

(3.) I have perused the reply filed by the accused. In paragraph 6 of the reply, it has been admitted by the accused that on 11.12.2006, card was issued to him which has been misplaced. It is further stated that he is not aware whether there was any mistake in the name of accused though he disclosed his name correctly. As a matter of fact, the accused has admitted that he approached the PGI for CT scan. The report of the CT scan is not known. The CT scan report and the opinion of the Board of Doctors clearly establish that the accused was not suffering from any serious ailment. Even the treatments given to him by Dr. Karamjit Singh as also in the Rajendra Hospital and PGI, Chandigarh do not establish that the accused had any serious ailment at the time when he was granted bail. The original registers examined by me even support the allegations of the petitioner that there are some insertions in the patient register of the jail. It seems that the disease of epilepsy and medicines for the same were inserted as an after-thought. Learned counsel for the accused has challenged the locus of the complainant to file application for cancellation of bail. His further contention is that once the Court has granted the bail on consideration of the material, it is not permissible to cancel the bail.