Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1662/2012
RAJ KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Navin Chawla & Ms. Nidhi Prashar, Advocates
BAIL APPLN. 1662/2012
RAJ KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Navin Chawla & Ms. Nidhi Prashar, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI
Through:
Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Jagdish Kumar
Through:
Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Jagdish Kumar
BAIL APPLN. 292/2013
RAJ KUMAR SHARMA
Through:
RAJ KUMAR SHARMA
Through:
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI
Through:
Petitioner Mr. Navin Chawla & Ms. Nidhi Prashar, Advocates
Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Jagdish Kumar
Through:
Petitioner Mr. Navin Chawla & Ms. Nidhi Prashar, Advocates
Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Jagdish Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
14.08.2013 The above captioned two applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for regular bail as well as for
Bail Application No.1662/2012 & Bail Application No.292/2013
Page 1 2013:DHC:6971 extension of interim bail in FIR No. 44/2008, under Sections
365/302/201/34 of the IPG, registered at police station New
Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the deposition of the material witnesses has been already recorded and petitioner is suffering from medical ailments including serious neurological problems and uncontrolled diabetes. Attention of this Court is drawn to the nominal roll of petitioner which indicates that due to one or another medical ailment, petitioner has been on interim bail since October, 2008 quite frequently.
To ensure that the trial of this case does not impeded due to absence of petitioner on dates of hearing, petitioner had undertaken not to dispute his identity and not to hinder recording of evidence. The trial of this case has spanned for almost five years and material prosecution evidence has been already recorded.
However, this application is opposed by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State by pointing out that the evidence already recorded incriminates petitioner and so, petitioner does not deserve bail.
Learned counsel for petitioner disputes that the evidence recorded implicates petitioner.
Bail Application No.1662/2012 & Page 2 BailApplication No.292/2013 r
Upon hearing and on considering the status report and the medical papers of petitioner on record, I find that the evidence recorded is not required to be pre-judged at this stage. Coronary
Angiography Report from RML Hospital, New Delhi (Annexure
-E) reveals that there is 99% blockage of major arteries in petitioner's heart and due to multiple medical problems, he could not be operated upon.
It would be relevant to reproduce the medical report of petitioner received from the jail authorities. It reads as under:-
"The inmate was sent to RML Hospital on 29.08.2012 they have fixed the date ofPTCA (Heart
Surgery) on 14.09.2012.
The inmate was reported at CJ-8/9 dispensary on
07.09.2012 with complaint of severe chest pain, he was examined by doctor and referred to DDU
Hospital in emergency on 07.09.2012for severe chest pain with hypertension, where he got admitted and discharged on 10.09.2012 and advisedfollow upfrom
RML Hospital for PTCA (Heart Surgery) on 14.09.2012 with prescription and blood sugar charting of DDU Hospital show uncontrolled
Diabetes.
The patient kept in MI Room at CJ-8/9 dispensary and blood sugar done on 12.09,2012 that come 477 mg%, and patient condition is not stable that need constant observation and care for above mentioned
Bail Application No.1662/2012 & Page 3 Bail Application No,292/2013 ailment that lead serious risk of life. At present patients condition is not stable. "
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the trial of this case has progressed in spite of petitioner frequently remaining on interim bail due to failing health and, therefore, without commenting on the merits of this case, it is deemed appropriate to continue interim bail order of 20^^
November, 2012 till the conclusion of the trial on the same
^ " terms and conditions with arider that petitioner shall in any manner not delay conclusion of trial of this case. It is expected that the trial court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial of this case within this calendar year. Needless to say if petitioner delays the trial of this case. State shall be at liberty to get this order revoked.
In the aforesaid terms, both the above captioned applications are disposed of
AUGUST 14, 2013 r rUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Bail Application No.1662/2012 & Page 4 Bail Application No.292/2013
14.08.2013 The above captioned two applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for regular bail as well as for
Bail Application No.1662/2012 & Bail Application No.292/2013
Page 1 2013:DHC:6971 extension of interim bail in FIR No. 44/2008, under Sections
365/302/201/34 of the IPG, registered at police station New
Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the deposition of the material witnesses has been already recorded and petitioner is suffering from medical ailments including serious neurological problems and uncontrolled diabetes. Attention of this Court is drawn to the nominal roll of petitioner which indicates that due to one or another medical ailment, petitioner has been on interim bail since October, 2008 quite frequently.
To ensure that the trial of this case does not impeded due to absence of petitioner on dates of hearing, petitioner had undertaken not to dispute his identity and not to hinder recording of evidence. The trial of this case has spanned for almost five years and material prosecution evidence has been already recorded.
However, this application is opposed by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State by pointing out that the evidence already recorded incriminates petitioner and so, petitioner does not deserve bail.
Learned counsel for petitioner disputes that the evidence recorded implicates petitioner.
Bail Application No.1662/2012 & Page 2 BailApplication No.292/2013 r
Upon hearing and on considering the status report and the medical papers of petitioner on record, I find that the evidence recorded is not required to be pre-judged at this stage. Coronary
Angiography Report from RML Hospital, New Delhi (Annexure
-E) reveals that there is 99% blockage of major arteries in petitioner's heart and due to multiple medical problems, he could not be operated upon.
It would be relevant to reproduce the medical report of petitioner received from the jail authorities. It reads as under:-
"The inmate was sent to RML Hospital on 29.08.2012 they have fixed the date ofPTCA (Heart
Surgery) on 14.09.2012.
The inmate was reported at CJ-8/9 dispensary on
07.09.2012 with complaint of severe chest pain, he was examined by doctor and referred to DDU
Hospital in emergency on 07.09.2012for severe chest pain with hypertension, where he got admitted and discharged on 10.09.2012 and advisedfollow upfrom
RML Hospital for PTCA (Heart Surgery) on 14.09.2012 with prescription and blood sugar charting of DDU Hospital show uncontrolled
Diabetes.
The patient kept in MI Room at CJ-8/9 dispensary and blood sugar done on 12.09,2012 that come 477 mg%, and patient condition is not stable that need constant observation and care for above mentioned
Bail Application No.1662/2012 & Page 3 Bail Application No,292/2013 ailment that lead serious risk of life. At present patients condition is not stable. "
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the trial of this case has progressed in spite of petitioner frequently remaining on interim bail due to failing health and, therefore, without commenting on the merits of this case, it is deemed appropriate to continue interim bail order of 20^^
November, 2012 till the conclusion of the trial on the same
^ " terms and conditions with arider that petitioner shall in any manner not delay conclusion of trial of this case. It is expected that the trial court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial of this case within this calendar year. Needless to say if petitioner delays the trial of this case. State shall be at liberty to get this order revoked.
In the aforesaid terms, both the above captioned applications are disposed of
AUGUST 14, 2013 r rUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Bail Application No.1662/2012 & Page 4 Bail Application No.292/2013
JUDGMENT