Fourth bail application dismissed. High Court refused bail due to absence of Medical Board Report regarding injured's health, despite trial completion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 10962/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Vyas. For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Madan Lal Balai.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
01/11/2018
Accused-petitioners have preferred this fourth bail application arising out of FIR No.48/2017 of Police Station Jhanwar, District Jodhpur for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307 & 34 IPC. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet in the matter and presently trial is in progress before Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.242/2017.
The first bail application of petitioners was dismissed as not pressed on 04.08.2017 followed by rejection of second bail application on 20.09.2017 on merits. Later on, third bail application of the petitioners was also rejected on 26.02.2018.
(2 of 3)
[CRLMB-10962/2018]
Pressing this fourth bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that during trial all the prosecution witnesses have been examined but for the injured. It is also argued by learned counsel that though the injured appeared before learned trial Court but showed his inability to depose on account of his ailments, and therefore, the learned trial Court has ordered for constituting a Medical Board but so far there is no report of the Medical Board,` opining that injured is unable to depose before the Court. It is also submitted by learned counsel that petitioners are in custody since 19.06.2017, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the fourth bail application of petitioners. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that considering the serious delinquencies of the petitioners, they are not entitled for grant of bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that injured is not in a position to depose before the Court.
Upon consideration the submissions made at Bar and perusal of the order-sheets of learned trial Court, it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court has already ordered for constituting Medical Board to examine the injured. In such circumstances, it is rather strange as to why the Medical Board has asked the injured to furnish the requisite documents for ascertaining his inability to depose rather than examining him to opine about his state of health. The Medical Board, after examining the injured, can very
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-10962/2018]
well tender its opinion as to whether he is in a position to depose before the Court or not. Therefore, it is expected of the learned trial Court to issue necessary directions to the Medical Board to examine the injured within 15 days from the date of production of this order. However, at this stage, sans report of the Medical Board, I feel disinclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
It is made clear that after receipt of opinion of the Medical Board, the petitioners would be at liberty to apply for bail afresh before learned trial Court.
With these observations, the fourth bail application is hereby dismissed.
Twinkle Singh/220
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a non-bailable offence pending trial pending a Medical Board Report on the injured party's capacity to depose.
The extent of the High Court's power to grant bail when the trial court has ordered a Medical Board examination for the injured.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiv Lal
Shiv Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
P.K. Lohra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
