JASMEET SINGH @ GINNI vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 20.12.2023
+ BAIL APPLN. 3658/2023
JASMEET SINGH @ GINNI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shalabh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with Insp. Suresh Chand PS: Khyala.
Mr. Bharat Chugh, Mr. Jai Allagh and Mr. Maanish Chaudhary, Advocates for respondent.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.(BAIL) 1780/2023 (for interim bail)
1. The instant application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking grant of interim bail for a period of three months in case FIR bearing no. 297/2017, registered at Police Station Khyala, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Issue notice. Mr. Manoj Pant, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 19.09.2017, the complainant Jatin Khera had lodged a missing complaint in respect of his brother Gaurav Khera, who had stated that his brother had not returned to his home. It was stated by the complainant that he had tried to contact his brother on his mobile number but it showed it to be switched off. During investigation, it was revealed that deceased Gaurav Khera had been dealing in money and few persons including the present accused/applicant Jasmeet, and his friend Karandeep were not returning his money. During the course of investigation, the dead body of the deceased was found at Chandnibagh District, Panipat which was identified by his family members. It was alleged by the prosecution that the deceased Gaurav Khera was dealing in lending money and he had advanced huge sum of loan to accused persons including the present accused/applicant, who had then abducted the deceased and murdered him at Sonipat, Haryana. The chargesheet in the present case was filed against the present accused/applicant under Sections 302/365/201/34 of IPC on 20.09.2017 before the learned Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the father of the applicant is critical and is in intensive care unit, and thus, requires that his son i.e. the present accused/applicant be there with him to take his care and attend to family needs. It is further stated that the mother of the applicant is suffering from various ailments and is bed-ridden most of the time, and hence, is not able to attend to the needs of father of the applicant who is in critical condition. It is stated that present accused/applicant is the only son of his aged parents, and there is no one to look after his aged father who is in critical condition. It is further stated that the sister of the applicant is married and has one minor son who needs her constant time and attention. It is also stated that the sister of the applicant has suffered a fracture in her arm in addition to her being constantly engaged with the care of her son, and thus due to this, she is not able to attend to the father of the applicant. The learned counsel further submits that the present accused/applicant was earlier also granted interim bail from 25.10.2019 to 07.12.2019 on medical grounds and two times from 01.09.2020 to 19.03.2021 and 23.05.2021 to 08.04.2023 as per the HPC Guidelines, and after expiry of his interim bail each time, the applicant had surrendered well on time and had never misused the liberty so granted to him by the court in any manner whosoever. It is further stated that all the material witnesses have already been examined and enlarging the present accused/applicant will cause no prejudice to the case of prosecution. Thus, the present accused/ applicant be released on interim bail.
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State argues that the allegations against the present accused/applicant are that he has murdered a young boy and there is strong evidence to corroborate the case of the prosecution. It is stated that the medical condition of the father of the applicant has been verified, but the applicant also has one sister who can take care of the father of the applicant. Learned APP for the State further argued that the circumstantial evidence i.e. available against the present accused/applicant clearly establish his role in the commission of the alleged offence. It is stated that all the witnesses have not been examined yet, and enlarging the present accused/applicant can hamper the trial. Thus, the interim bail application of the present accused/applicant is liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the victim, while assisting learned APP for the State, argues that the present application for interim bail was filed on the same date on which the father of the applicant was admitted to the ICU. It is stated that as a general rule, no attendant is allowed in the ICU and thus, it cannot be disputed that even if the applicant is released on bail, he cannot enter the ICU, where the father of the applicant is currently undergoing medical treatment. The learned counsel for the victim also argues that there is strong chain of circumstantial evidence which clearly establishes that the present accused/applicant has committed cold-blooded murder of a young boy.
7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and has perused material on record.
8. The present interim bail application has been preferred before this Court on the ground that the father of the applicant is currently in ICU and has been suffering from status epileptics with unconscious state with respiratory difficulty, in addition to RT hemiplegic/ hemipereis with sub acute pan cerebeller syndrome. The father of the applicant is unable to get up and is bed-ridden and thus, a male attendant is required to look after him.
9. The accused herein, however, is allegedly involved in an offence relating to alleged murder of a young boy. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the accused herein had to return huge amount of money which belonged to the deceased. It has further been alleged that the present accused/applicant had in conspiracy with other co-accused persons abducted the deceased and had then murdered him.
10. This Court has also gone through the medical documents pertaining to the father of the applicant and notes that the father of the applicant has been admitted in the Intensive Care Unit of Tyagi Nursing Home, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi since 08.12.2023. It has also been stated in the medical documents that no surgery is being planned, and a male attendant is required to take care of him at all times. This Court has also gone through the Status Report filed by the State wherein the medical documents filed by the applicant herein have been verified to be true.
11. Having perused the entire medical documents placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the intensive care unit of a hospital is a restricted area and does not allow any person who is not from the hospital staff to remain in the ICU beyond a limited period of time. It has also been submitted by the applicant themselves that the applicant has also a sister who can be there to take care of her father as and when required. Thus, in this Courts opinion the father of the applicant is being given best possible treatment and other family members of the applicant are there to manage and cater to the needs of the father of the applicant in his absence.
12. This Court while dealing with such applications have to weigh the need for release of the applicant on interim bail against the seriousness of allegations alleged against him and the material available against him. This Court has to decide such applications in view of the necessity of applicants presence in such situation and has to also be cognizant of the fact that will the absence of applicant be detrimental to the care which is required by the patient. Thus, such applications have to be viewed in entirety of facts so as there remains a balance between the need of care required by applicants family in such situations, and the right of victim to get justice.
13. At this Stage, there is no document on record which could lead to a conclusion that the presence of the applicant is required for three months as a male attendant.
14. The applicant however, will be at liberty to move fresh application on this ground in case the circumstances so require and his fathers further treatment or surgery etc. is planned.
15. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed in above terms.
16. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
17. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
DECEMBER 20, 2023/zp
BAIL APPLN. 3658/2023 Page 1 of 6