Allowed

Sarwar Khan @ Sheru v. State

Rajasthan HC22 Feb 2022CRLMB/850/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the petitioner's interim bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for one month to undergo heart surgery, despite objections from prosecution and complainant regarding previous similar applications, directing him to furnish personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on interim bail for one month with personal bond of Rs 3,00,000 and two surety bonds of Rs 1,50,000 each to Jail Superintendent, Pratapgarh.

Sarwar Khan @ Sheru Vs State — Medical Negligence | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 850/2022

¶3

(Interim Bail)

¶4

Sarwar Khan @ Sheru S/o Sh. Rashid Khan, Aged About 48 Years, Karunda, Teh. Chhoti Sadari, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.). (In Judicial Custody At Dist. Jail, Pratapgarh).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. J.S. Choudhary assisted by
	Mr. PradeepChoudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
	Mr. Rahul Bhati for the complainant

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶11

Order

¶12

22/02/2022

¶13

The present interim bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with C.R. No.113/2017, Police Station Chhoti Sadari, District Pratapgarh, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

In compliance of order dated 21.01.2022 and 01.02.2022, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report in regard to illness and requirement of heart surgery of the accusedpetitioner.

¶15

Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Public

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMB-850/2022]

¶18

Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the present bail application has been filed by the petitioner seeking interim bail for a period of six months on the ground of heart surgery of the petitioner and as per medical advice, heart surgery of the petitioner is required, therefore, petitioner may be granted the benefit of interim bail.

¶20

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant has fervently and vehemently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that benefit of interim bail has already been granted to the accused-petitioner for three-four times but the heart surgery of the accused-petitioner has not been performed.

¶21

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the above mentioned facts have already been mentioned before Hon’ble the Apex Court and despite granting benefit of interim bail to the petitioner a direction was issued to the respondents vide order dated 09.12.2021 that, “respondent shall ensure that the petitioner is given medical treatment, of necessary by hospitalisation to control his Blood Pressure and Diabetes. As and when the petitioner is medically fit to undergo surgery, he may apply for interim bail to undergo surgery to the High Court.”

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the factual report and other relevant document(s) available on record in regard to heart surgery of the accused-petitioner, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present interim bail application of the accused-petitioner

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMB-850/2022]

¶25

deserves to be allowed and the accused-petitioner deserves to be enlarged on interim bail for a period of one month.

¶26

Consequently, the interim bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that instead of six months, the petitioner, Sarwar Khan @ Sheru S/o Sh. Rashid Khan, arrested in connection with C.R. No.113/2017, Police Station Chhoti Sadari, District Pratapgarh, shall be released on interim bail for a period of one month from the date of his actual release; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs only) and two sound and solvent surety bonds of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lac Fifty Thousand only) [one surety shall be of family member/close relative] each to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent, Pratapgarh.

¶27

The concerned Jail Superintendent shall be at liberty to impose any other usual terms and conditions for ensuring surrender of the petitioner in prison, after expiry of the period of one month which is granted under this interim bail application.

¶28

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶29

20-Rashi/-

Sarwar Khan @ Sheru v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarwar Khan @ Sheru v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Singh Vs State

Himmat Singh Vs State

Nakul Kumar Vs State

Chandra Kanwar Vs State

Gomti Bai Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Jhamku @ Shanta Vs State of Rajasthan