MUGLI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Besides other accused, Mst. Mugli and Mst. Shareefa are facing trial in FIR 287 of 2001 under Section 447/302 read with Section 34 R.P.C. before the District and Sessions Judge Baramulla. Mst. Shareefa has been given bail on 1/11/2003, whereas, Mst. Mugli has been refused bail by the same order. This order is under challenge in this petition. The grounds taken are that in all six persons accused, are facing trial in the case before District and Sessions Judge Baramulla. A joint application was moved by Mugli and Shareefa for bail. The trial court admitted Shareefa to bail but refused it to Mugli. Both ladies along with other four male accused are roped in the case in almost identical circumstances and on similar facts. Both are facing same charge of complicity in the crime as vicarious liability for having caused death amounting to murder. Both were referred for medical examination and both have been certified to be suffering from ailment. The applicant Mugli, is more than 60 years of age and has to look after the home and the children. Shareefa who is much younger to her has been given bail for no appreciable reason. The applicant is suffering from phy-chiatric disorder her continuance incarceration is likely to expose her to risk on health grounds.

(2.) Heard counsel for the parties. Mr. M.A. Rathore, AAG for the State is conceding that both the women accused are facing trial for same charge for causing death on similar allegations and in almost identical circumstances. He also concedes that both were examined by the Medical Board as to their state of health. The opinion of the State Medical Board of Government, SMHS Hospital Srinagar, respect of the state of health of two ladies is opined as under

(3.) Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Ld. Sessions Judge has dealt with the case of Mst. Shareefa and appears to have been influenced by the Board opinion that this is a case of paranoid schizophrenia in remission and has passed bail order on that count. However, in respect of Mst. Mugli, the District and Sessions Judge has failed to consider the above referred opinion of the Medical Board. That she too is a case of adjustment disorder of anxiety feature (minor Psychiatric disorder). Besides the trial court has also pointedly omitted to consider her advanced age and the gravamen of charge against her when the other accused including her husband is in custody as under trial.