2017 (8) TMI 1724 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular Bail - second and third bail application - seeking grant of bail on medical grounds - HELD THAT - The bail order of Mohan Lalwani and the documents filed along with these bail applications would show that Mohan Lalwani being aged about 60 years and because of ailment and further he was shown to be physically disabled as per Annexure A-12, was enlarged on bail. Therefore, the present applicants cannot claim parity of order on the basis of medical document submitted. Neither the degree of ailment or age is at par with the other coaccused. The fact that whether the primary evidence have been adduced or not and the statement of Manish Tawri (PW-11) who states about the presence of fracture cannot be decided during hearing the bail applications, it would be within the exclusive domain of the trial Court to examine the same. Any observation or finding at this stage would amount to usurp the power of trial Court. Witnesses have already been examined, however, it appears that OP Singh, who is injured is still to be examined and progress of the trial is satisfactory since 11 witnesses have already been examined - there are no change in the circumstances to reconsider the bail again. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for applicants arrested for multiple offenses including Sections 186, 332, 353, 294, 506, 452, 323, 427 and 333 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Previous bail applications dismissed. Discrepancies in the prosecution case and evidence. Parity with a co-accused granted bail. Progress of trial and examination of witnesses.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the second bail application for one applicant and the third bail application for another, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail. The applicants were arrested in connection with a case involving various offenses under the IPC. Previous bail applications were dismissed, with one being withdrawn and the other dismissed on merits.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants, along with others, caused disturbances at the office of the Food Corporation of India, leading to an assault on the General Manager resulting in injuries. The defense argued discrepancies in the evidence, particularly regarding the severity of the injuries and the lack of primary evidence from certain medical professionals. The defense also highlighted the bail granted to a co-accused on medical grounds and sought parity in treatment.

The State vehemently opposed the bail applications, citing ongoing evidence collection and witness examination. It was emphasized that the co-accused granted bail had specific medical conditions and age-related factors that differed from the present applicants. The State contended that the trial court should assess the primary evidence and make determinations, cautioning against preemptive conclusions during bail hearings.

The court considered the progress of the trial, noting that several witnesses had been examined, with the injured party still pending examination. The court found no significant change in circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the bail applications. Emphasizing the trial court's jurisdiction over evidence evaluation, the court rejected both bail applications based on the existing circumstances and progress of the trial.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the complexities of bail applications involving multiple serious offenses, discrepancies in evidence, considerations of parity with co-accused, and the importance of trial court assessment in determining factual matters. The decision underscores the need for a comprehensive evaluation of evidence and progress in the trial process before revisiting bail applications.