Amarjeet Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Another

Heard.

The petitioner has filed the instant bail application for grant of bail in FIR No.04/2014 for commission of offences under Section 302, 307, 427,324, 34, 120-B RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, registered with Police Station, Miran Sahib, Jammu.

It is contended in the bail application that after completing the investigation in the matter, criminal challan has been presented, which is pending before learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu for trial. That twenty years back, one of the kidney of the petitioner was removed and after removal of the same, he is totally dependent upon single kidney. His condition is deteriorating day by day because of non-specialized treatment in the Jail. That after arrest of the petitioner and incarceration in the Jail, his health condition got deteriorated because of the denial of specialized treatment. The Jail authority keeping in view deteriorating health condition of the petitioner took him to Government Medical College, Jammu frequently for saving his life by providing him specialized treatment. However, due to non homely care and providing of non specialized treatment even at Government Medical College, Jammu, there was no improvement in the health condition of the petitioner. That petitioner filed a bail application before this Court for grant of bail on medical ground, which was contested by the respondents by filing their objections. That on 17.11.2015, whereby the bail application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be released from Jail on furnishing two surety bonds in the amount of Rs.1.00 lac. each to the satisfaction of Registrar Judicial and personal bond in the amount of Rs.1.00 lacs.

After releasing on interim bail, the petitioner had undergone regular treatment for hospital and during his bail he did not make any attempt or effort to come in contact with the prosecution witnesses. Now, the petitioner was in specialized treatment of Doctor of the Government Super Specialty Hospital, Jammu and recently has been attended by the Head of Department of Nephrology Department of the Government Super Specialty Hospital, Jammu. That after the expiry of the short bail, the petitioner surrendered before the District Jail, Jammu on 17.02.2016. The petitioner has prayed that in case bail granted to him vide order dated 17.11.2015 is not extended, the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss.

Objections have been filed by the State, wherein it has been stated that application is misconceived and required to be dismissed. The wife of deceased has also filed an application for dismissal of bail application; that against the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by this Court, an SLP was preferred by her before the Hon'ble Apex Court. That SLP has been disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated 27.01.2016. That on 15.02.2016, an application for extension of bail was moved but no extension was granted by this Court. The case was directed to be listed on 17th of February, 2016. Thereafter when matter came up for hearing on 19th of February, 2016, this court directed the matter to come up before the same Bench, which passed the order on 17.02.2016. The matter, therefore, came up before this court on 25.02.2016. In the meantime, the Superintendent District Jail had informed the Registrar Judicial of this Court that Amarjeet Singh/petitioner has not surrendered on 17.02.2016 before the Jail Authority after expiry of bail period; from the above said facts, it is clear that there was no order of extension of bail and petitioner also did not surrender before the Jail on 17.02.2016 after expiry of interim bail. This was a clear breach of the interim bail order dated 17.11.2015. That on 18.02.2016 the case was fixed before the trial court for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The accused did not appear in the Court proceedings and filed an application for exemption. That accused was bound to surrender before the Superintendent District Jail, Jammu. The trial court vide an order dated 29.02.2016 did not intervene for the reason because of the pendency of the lis with regard to the extension of the bail.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of record annexed with the petition, it is evident that this court on 17.11.2015 granted interim bail to petitioner on medical ground for three months, with direction to petitioner to surrender before Jail authority on 17.02.2016; but petitioner did not surrender but in fact applied for extension of bail through the medium of this petition. That was not granted, but only notice was issued. On 10.03.2016, counsel for petitioner produced the accused before this court and he was sent to judicial custody in jail; it further appears that wife of deceased filed an SLP before Apex court against order of temporary bail granted by this court; Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.) No.769/2016 dated 27.01.2016 has passed the following order:-

"Permission to file the special leave petition is granted.

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.

However, we make it clear that in the event the respondent-accused files an application for further extension of interim bail, the concerned court shall pass an appropriate order after obtaining a fresh medical report from the Medical Board.

As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of."

Wife of deceased through her counsel has filed an application for placing on record the order of apex court and also prayed for dismissal of extension of bail. In compliance to Apex court order, the medical Board was directed to be constituted by this court on 14.03.2016; report was accordingly placed on record; on 25.05.2016 counsel for petitioner sought time to go through the report; petition thereafter remained pending and due to various reasons could not be heard. On 26.04.2017 this court directed re examination of petitioner by board as report was found old one. The order dated 13.11.2017 would reveal that report was produced by petitioner by filing MP and complainant/wife of deceased sought time to file response; then matter again remained pending and on 20.8.2018 fresh report was called from the Government Medical College, Jammu. The latest medical report submitted by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jammu, Kot Bhalwal dated 12.11.2018, would reveals as under:-

"In compliance to Hon'ble High Court of J&K Jammu order dated 20.08.2018, In case titled Amarjit Singh Vs. State of J&K APPCR No. 07/2016 in B.A No. 85/2014 the above said inmate in known case of Hypertension with right NEPHECTOMY and was sent to GMC Hospital Jammu for the Medical Board (Nephrology, Urology & Cardiology) on 12.09.2018 and the Medical Board has advised some investigations, the same have been done.

When concerned doctors are contracted after the Reports of investigation they prescribed him some medicines, whereas the consultant from nephrology advised him specialized investigation i..e DTPA Scan for GFR LEFT Kidney. The facility for the same is not available at GMC Hospital Jammu. Therefore the Nephrologists referred the Patient for the same to SMVDH Kakryal Katra. The said test has been done at SMVDH Kakryal Katra on 27.10.2018 (copy enclosed). However the report received from SMVDH Kakryal Katra has been sent to GMC Hospital Jammu for final opinion.

This is for your kind information and onwards submission to the concerned authorities and Hon'ble Court.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

Medical Officer

Central Jail Jammu KB"

I have gone through the investigation conducted by SMVDH Kakryal Katra dated 27.10.2018. The impression of report reads as under:-

Left Kidney; Good cortical function and unobstructed drainage.

Right Kidney; Non visualized Kidney (Post-Nephrectomy)

From above report, it is evident that petitioner has already right kidney operated, whereas his left kidney is working well. Previous report dated 26.05.2017 lying in the file would reveal that he was examined by board of Doctors comprising Urologist, cardiologist and Nephrologists; after examination board furnished a report stating that he is a case of previous (R) nephrectomy with single functioning (L) Kidney; his renal function test urea/creatinine were found normal and he was advised for drugs for control of hypertension.

From the above facts and circumstances of case, it is evident that petitioner is not suffering from any fatal disease, for which he requires specialized treatment which is not available in jail. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. Petitioner may file regular bail before trial court and he has right to file bail on medical grounds, if in future, he suffers any serious complication.