AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
16 paragraphs · 272 wordsA.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 401/397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugnd order dated
19.02.2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.
Rule heard forthwith with the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties.
It is not in dispute that the under trial petitioner was allowed by the trial Court to have the treatment from his private doctor who was allowed to
complete his treatment in the jail. In view of the report submitted by Dr. Vikram Panghal, the trial Court has not found any reason to allow the
undertrial petitioner for further treatment and hence this revision petition.
We have perused the said report so also reply filed by the learned State counsel. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in jail and is being looked
after by the jail authorities. In the wake of the fact that the trial Court has allowed the visit of his private doctor to treat him 24 times and in view of
further fact that only two visits have remained for completion of the treatment, we do not think that it would make any material difference if his
private doctor is allowed to complete treatment of the petitioner in the jail.
In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present revision petition with a direction to allow the same private doctor to visit the jail twice and to
complete the treatment in jail on petitioner's cost.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would not request for any further extension thereafter.
Statement is accepted.
Revision Petition disposed of, accordingly.