MEHRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 439 Criminal Procedure Code. in a case under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code. The accused-petitioner is in judicial custody. He suffered mental sickness and an application was moved that his bail should be granted for getting him treated by some Psychiatrist or an expert on the subject. A certificate from Dr. D.P. Mathur filed earlier along with a similar application which was not acceptable on the ground that he had not stated in his certificate that the accused is of unsound mind. A distinction is drawn between mental sickness and a man of unsound mind and the bail on this count has been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur. According to him since the case is not brought within the purview of Sec. 328 and 329 Criminal Procedure Code. Sec. 330 Criminal Procedure Code. would not be attracted. Legally speaking the learned Judge may be correct. But at the same time it is the duty of the court to ensure that the inmates of prison have also a right to life as guaranteed by the Constitution and now accepted in several cases by this court and the Supreme Court. If Art. 21 of the Constitution of India is attracted in any manner it has to be given effect to in a case like the one where there is no proper medical facility available and it is opined by the doctors that the accused requires an atmosphere which is other than where he is kept in prison and this fact is not denied by the jail authorities and they insist on the family members of the accused to send the attendant to look after him in jail. In my opinion it would be an imprisonment to other free citizen rather than getting facilities to the prisoner for getting himself treated. In the instant case the Superintendent, Central jail Ajmer wrote letter to the SHO, P.S. Ganj, Ajmer that the Asstt. Professor in Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College and Department of Psychiatrist and Mental disease has asked for service of an attendant and under the jail rules there is no provision to send him an attendant and they are unable to provide one as a message should be sent to the house of the accused to arrange for an attendant for the accused. In fact it would have been better that the Superintendent, Jail instead of writing a letter to the S.H.O. should have written a letter to the Government for arranging for the attendants in cases of such patients so that the patient can be properly looked after. Hypothatically speaking if some accused has no relation in the particular town or in nearby should he be left to nobodys care as the jail rules do not provide for an attendant. This letter therefore, strengthens the case in favour of the accused that he is required to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

(2.) I, therefore, direct that the accused shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 provided he is found in a mental condition to understand the conditions of the bond which shall be verified by the learned Judge verifying the bonds and/or in the alternative a bond by his natural guardian in the aforesaid amount with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 each for his appearance in the trial court or in such court where the case is transferred. A condition in the bond should be mentioned that the person executing the bond and the surity bonds shall take proper care of the accused-petitioner and he shall be prevented from doing any injury to himself or to any other person and for his appearance in the court. In case of violation of any of these conditions also they shall be liable for forfeiture of the surity bonds.