HAR SAHAY MEENA Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question relating to "jail or bail' during the pendency of trial, involved in the present two bail applications, with regard to custodial death alleged against accused -applicants, who are members of police force deserve serious consideration of this Court. THE aforesaid question is to be answered with unstirred judicial mindset. Keeping in view the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence collected by Investigating Officer in support of such accusation, the severity of the punishment which conviction may entail, the difficult task, which uniformed police force to perform in adverse circumstances to maintain law and order and safeguards provided to them while discharging their professional duties, without being influenced with print media, leading to large scale public agitation.

(2.) THE present two bail applications under Section 439, Cr. P. C. , arise out of FIR No. 4 (s) 2000/sic. IV/nd registered for offence under Section 302, IPC, but after investigation, charge - sheet has been filed in Court by Investigating Officer for offences punishable under Sections 304, 323, 325, 218 and 201, read with Section 34, IPC regarding which, Bail Application No. 634/2000 of accused applicant Har Sahay Meena, has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, vide his order dt. 29. 9. 2000, whereas, the first bail application of accused applicant Shanti Chand, was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer, on 3. 10. 2000, and his second bail application was also rejected on 12. 12. 2000. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, I propose to dispose of these two bail applications after weighing the pros and cons to the effect that our country and other civilised countries of the world have realised the necessity, to protect the human rights, in view of changing social realities and emerging trends in the nature of crime and violence by evolving and pressing into service the doctrine of zero tolerance.

(3.) IT is further revealed from the perusal of the case -diary that the Investigating Officer could not come to terms with the conclusions, drawn by the Medical Board of Ajmer, since the Medical Board on one hand opined that the deceased died due to Cerebral Concussion and the brain was found healthy. The Investigating Officer, finding himself to be in a fiasco, sought opinion of Medico -Legal Expert Committee, comprising of six eminent doctors of All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The said Medical Board, after thorough examination of all the documents as also after viewing the videography of post -mortem, conducted at Ajmer, came to the conclusion that the deceased died as a result of Myocardial infraction (heart -attack), due to Coronary Atherosclerosis and ante -mortem thrombosis of left anterior descending branch of left coronary artery. The onset of Myocardial Infarction was at least four hours prior to death. The injuries mentioned in post -mortem report are not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, individually or collectively. According to the report of Medical Jurist of AIIMS, injuries mentioned in the post -mortem report of Dharmendra Meghvanshi and Medico -Legal Report of Ashok Chaudhary, could be produced by blunt force, including road traffic accident.