2017 (8) TMI 1725 - HC - Indian Laws

Interference with the process issued against the accused Respondents on the private complaint filed by the wife of the deceased Bapu Nivrutti Gund - Probity of evidence - HELD THAT - The High Court in the impugned judgment seems to have embarked on a virtual trial of the case though it was entertaining an application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure/Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order taking cognizance and the complaint as a whole. The probity of the evidence tendered by the complainant's witnesses prior to issuance of process was even gone into by the High Court. Having regard to the settled principles of law, the approach of the High Court not considered to be correct in law. At the stage at which the case was poised for consideration, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court to have embarked upon the exercise that was undertaken. As the same appears to be in clear excess of jurisdiction, the order of the High Court is set aside and it is directed that the complaint proceedings against the accused Respondents be continued from the stage where the same was interdicted. The order of High Court set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Application for regular bail in connection with multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code, opposition by the respondent based on previous rejection of bail application, applicant's medical condition necessitating urgent Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) treatment.

Analysis:
1. Bail Application: The judgment addresses the application for regular bail by the accused in connection with various serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The applicant sought bail on grounds of parity, medical treatment, old age, and delay in trial. The respondent opposed the bail application, citing the rejection of a previous bail plea by the court after the charge sheet was filed.

2. Medical Condition: The applicant's medical condition emerged as a crucial aspect of the case. The defense argued that the accused required urgent Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) treatment, which was not available at the Sub Jail in Latur where he was currently lodged. Medical documents supported the claim that the necessary medical facilities for the required treatment were unavailable at the current location.

3. Previous Rejection: The judgment highlighted the previous rejection of the bail application by the court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The court noted that all grounds raised in the present application had been considered during the previous rejection, and the bail plea was turned down based on those reasons. The respondent emphasized that the issues had already been adjudicated on merits, and the applicant was not entitled to reopen them.

4. Court's Decision: After considering the arguments and the medical documents presented, the court rejected the criminal application for bail. However, recognizing the urgent medical needs of the accused, the court directed the respondent to shift the applicant from Sub Jail Latur to Central Prison, Aurangabad, for the necessary medical treatment, specifically Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG). The court specified that after the medical treatment, the applicant should be returned to Sub Jail Latur to attend the trial.

5. Final Disposition: The judgment concluded with the directions for the respondent to immediately shift the applicant to Central Prison, Aurangabad, for medical treatment and then return him to Sub Jail Latur after the treatment. With these directions, the criminal application was disposed of, addressing both the bail plea and the urgent medical needs of the accused.