The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to murder accused on the grounds that there was contradiction in medical evidence.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra passed this order, while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Anish alias Mithai.
The application for bail has been filed by applicant Anish@ Mithai seeking his enlargement on bail in Case under Sections 302, 34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Karimuddinpur,, District-Ghazipur, during pendency of trial.
The Court noted that the incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 27.05.2021, a delayed FIR dated 28.05.2021 was lodged by first informant Bansnarayan Yadav (Father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case under Sections 34, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Karimuddinpur,, District-Ghazipur.
In the FIR, four persons namely Ajeet, Anish @ Mithai (applicant herein), Manish @ Pardeshi and Shashi @ Shashikant have been named as accused.
The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that a scuffle took place in between first informant and accused. Thereafter, a gun shot was fired by Ajeet, which missed. Subsequently, another gun shot was fired by Anish @ Mithal i.e applicant herein, which hit at the stomach of the injured namely Bansnarayan.
Subsequent to aforesaid FIR, the injured was referred for treatment in a private Hospital. He was discharged from the said Hospital on the same day i.e 10.06.2021. The discharge summary contains a recital that the injury sustained a gunshot injury on the left side of abdomen.
Subsequently, the injured was readmitted to the Hospital on account of certain complaints raised by him but he ultimately died on 08.09.2021.
Perusal of the same goes to show that the deceased has died due to Cardio Respiratory Failure. Subsequently, a post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 08.09.2021.
In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the deceased died on account of septicaemia as a result of ante-mortem injury noted above.
After registration of the aforementioned FIR, the Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of the concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. He examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 CrPC.
On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the chargesheet dated 12.01.2022 whereby named accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 34, 504 and 506 IPC.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident giving rise to criminal proceedings occurred on 27.05.2022. However, the deceased died on 08.09.2021. There is a contradiction with regard to the cause of death of the deceased. As per death certificate, the deceased died on account of Cardio Respiratory Failure whereas as per post-mortem report, the deceased died on account of septicaemia as a result of antemortem injury sustained by him.
Drawing a parallel between FIR and medical evidence regarding cause of death of the deceased as noted above, counsel for applicant submits that prima-facie, offence under Section 302 IPC is not established against applicant.
It is lastly contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except one. Applicant has been in jail since 05.07.2021. As such, he has undergone almost one year and four months of incarceration. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. The charge-sheet has already been submitted against applicant therefore the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant, stands crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of applicants is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, she submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail
Per contra, the A.G.A and Munna Kumar Singh, the counsel representing the first informant have opposed the application for bail. They submit that the applicant is a named as well as charge sheet accused. Applicant is guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence by the Court. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the counsel for the applicant.
“Having heard the counsel for applicant, the A.G.A for State, the counsel representing first informant, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that the occurrence took place on 27.05.2021 whereas the deceased died on 08.09.2021, there being contradiction in the medical evidence with regard to cause of death of deceased but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail, at this stage”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant- Anish@ Mithai involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicant will abide by the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.