RUP CHANDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Senior Counsel Shri B. Sharma while adverting to the facts submitted that the alleged incident took place on 18 -01 -2016 around 6 a.m. as per the statement of the victim's daughter made under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") before a Judicial magistrate. The case was registered on the same date under Sec. 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"), against unknown person. Later on the same date, on the victim succumbing to his injuries the matter was converted to Sec. 304 of the IPC. That even assuming but not admitting that the Petitioner had assaulted the victim leading to the victim's demise, the provision of Part II of Sec. 304 of the IPC is attracted as the Petitioner may have had 'knowledge' but had no 'intention' to cause the death of the victim.

(2.) In the next leg of the argument of Learned Senior Counsel, it was contended that it is now approximately 110 days since the lodging of the FIR consequent to which the Petitioner was arrested on 07 -04 -2016, however, till date no Charge -Sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer (for short "the I.O."). To fortify this submission, he has placed reliance on Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v/s. C.B. I. and Another : AIR 2012 SC 949. He also canvassed the point that bail not jail is the Rule as laid down in Sanjay Chandra v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2012) 1 SCC 40. That, the question of the Petitioner tampering with the evidence does not arise since the statements of the relevant witnesses have been recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Apart from the above submissions, he places strong reliance on the Petitioner's medical documents and submits that since February, 2016, the Petitioner has been beset with heart problems, i.e., unstable angina, added to which he is also suffering from hypothyroidism and anxiety disorder. He is under medication for his ailments and is being treated by a Neuropsychiatrist at STNM Hospital for depressive disorder. Submitting before this Court a Medical Report dated 04 -05 -2016 pertaining to the Petitioner, it is further contended that the said follow up Report of the Central Referral Hospital, Manipal, indicates that he is still suffering from unstable angina, hypertension and hypothyroidism and considering his condition, the family seek to take him for treatment outside Sikkim. Hence, taking into consideration the time taken by the Police to complete their investigation and in consideration of the above facts, it would only be fair to enlarge the Petitioner on bail on any stringent condition deemed fit by this Court.