Zamsingh v. The State of Maharashtra

Heard Mr.V.S.Sonwane, learned counsel for Applicant and Shri.B.J.Sonwane, learned A.P.P. for Respondents.

This is an application preferred by applicant seeking bail in connection with Crime No.140 of 2009, registered at Itwara Police Station, Nanded, 2 Cri.A.5331.10 for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Jagitsingh Bishansingh Khalasa, on 11.12.2009 in respect of the occurrence of the incident at about 8.15.a. m., on the said date. Initially, applicant had filed Bail Application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. before Ad-hoc Sessions Judge-3, Nanded on 20th March, 2010, after filing the Charge sheet. On

03.04.2005, same came to be rejected by the learned Judge. Thereafter, the applicant preferred bail application before this Court bearing Criminal Application No. 1549 of 2010 and same also came to be dismissed by this Court, on 5th May, 2010 on merit. Thereafter, applicant preferred next application before learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded incorporating Medical ground therein, but same also was rejected by the learned Judge, on 29th November, 2010 on merit. Accordingly, this is fourth Bail application preferred by the applicant and that too second application for bail before this Court.

However, even after making specific query to the learned counsel for the applicant in respect of change in circumstances after rejection 3 Cri.A.5331.10 of earlier bail applications, the learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any change in circumstance after dismissal of earlier bail applications.

Keeping in mind the said aspect and coming to the present application, it appears from investigation papers that the Sword in question i. e. deadly weapon allegedly used by the applicant in the aforesaid assault, has been discovered at his instance and same has been seized under the memorandum Panchnama. Moreover, the “Injury Certificate” of complainant discloses that he received grievous injury on parietal bone-skull displaced fracture, as well as he sustained grievous injury on left hand and also on right hand and even his fingers also amputated, and hence, it is apparent that the injuries sustained by the complainant are serious in nature.

As regards medical grounds put forth by the applicant, it appears that he is suffering from Bronchitics(Asthma) and it is observed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded, in the order dated 29th November, 2010 that necessary medical treatment is being given to him in the Government Hospital, Nanded, and there is no substance in his submission for treatment at Mumbai or Hyderabad. Moreover, direction was also 4 Cri.A.5331.10 given by the learned Judge to the Jail Authorities to get the applicant medically examined by the Doctor of his choice at his own cost. Hence, it appears that due care of the medical treatment in respect of alleged ailment of the applicant was taken by the learned Assistant Judge, Nanded.

Besides, applicant has put forth ground of ailment of his wife, and produced the medical papers along with present application. It appears that said ailment pertains to Thyroid and as per medical papers produced by the applicant, she is being given necessary medical treatment. Moreover, applicant also put forth ground of ailment of his daughter and produced medical Certificate in that respect. However, it also appears that she is being given necessary medical treatment at Jijamata Hospital, Nanded. In the said context, learned APP states that said ailment is not serious ailment. According to him, considering the alleged ailment of the applicant his wife and his daughter, it appears that said ailments are not of serious nature, warranting the release of the applicant on bail.

Besides, it is seen that learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded has issued directions to expedite the trial of the concerned Sessions Case if not delayed by the applicant himself on some 5 Cri.A.5331.10 other counts. Accordingly, case was fixed for evidence, but it appears that same was adjourned at the instance of applicant only.

Thus, having the comprehensive view of the matter, it is apparent that the applicant has failed to make out any case for grant of bail, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected.

In the result, present Criminal Application, which is sans merit stands dismissed. Sd/-

[SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.] MTK