IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
VISHAL MISHRA, J.
Munni Devi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
MCRC No. 10526 of 2021
Decided On : 01-03-2021
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - IPC - 302, 34 - [INJURY, ANTICIPATORY BAIL, IPC 302, IPC 34] - The court discussed the injuries reported in the Postmortem report and the discrepancy with the initial examination by the doctors at BIMR Hospital. It highlighted the incomplete case diary and directed an inquiry into the matter. The court concluded that due to the presence of head injury and other antemortem injuries, the applicant was not granted anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a second bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in connection with a case registered for offences under section 302 and 34 of IPC. The applicant argued that there was no allegation against them for the commission of the offence and highlighted discrepancies in the medical documents and case diary.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the bail application, citing the presence of head injury and other antemortem injuries reported in the Postmortem report. It directed an inquiry into the incomplete case diaries being sent to the AG office.
Issues: Discrepancies in medical documents, incomplete case diaries, grant of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: Presence of head injury and antemortem injuries led to the rejection of the anticipatory bail application. The court also emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry into the incomplete case diaries being sent to the AG office.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the Superintendent of Police Bhind was directed to inquire into the matter of incomplete case diaries being sent to the AG office.
JUDGMENT :
Vishal Mishra, J.
1. This is second bail application u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The applicant is apprehending her arrest by Police Station Mehgaon district Bhind in connection with Crime No. 02 of 2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/s. 302 and 34 of IPC.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that although first application of the applicant being M.Cr.C. No. 1949 of 2021 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.1.2021 with liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail but again this second application for the same purpose is being filed taking aid of judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Balvir Singh Bundela Vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5621 of 2020. It is alleged that there is no allegation against the present applicant for commission of offence. It is argued that initially, the deceased was examined at BIMR Hospital, wherein, no injury on her head was reported by the doctors. Thereafter, she was shifted to JAH Hospital where, she was admitted with respect to injury to brain stem infarct. It is pointed out that until the treatment is given by BIMR Hospital, the doctors have not opined anything regarding any injury on the head of the deceased. Subsequently in the Postmortem report, it was shown that the deceased had expired owing to head injury. On 24.2.2021, when specific query was put to State counsel to point out the document of BIMR Hospital from the case diary, it was submitted that the documents are not available in the case diary. This court had directed the State counsel to call for the medical documents from the BIMR Hospital and the investigating officer was directed to explain as to why, these documents are not enclosed with the case diary. Today, the State counsel has argued that the documents were well available in the case dairy on 24.2.2021 except the document of referring the patient to the JAH Hospital Gwalior. Aforesaid document is of discharge summery of the patients pointing out that he was admitted on 16.11.2019 and discharged on 18.11.2019 and the diagnosis is given as brain stem infarct with unconsciousness. Loss of conciseness and breathing difficulty are the reasons for admission. Counsel for the State could not give any reason that why when the documents were available in the case dairy why they were not pointed out to the court on 24.2.2021. The cause of death is shown to be cardio respiratory failure due to head injury. The death is shown to be 20 to 26 hours and is mentioned to be homicidal in nature. The document of BIMR hospital shows that she was admitted on 16.11.2019. The initial examination of the deceased was reported to be loss of consciousness and breathing difficulty and in the heading of external injuries, it was found that no external injury is present. The patient was referred to the JAH Hospital, where she expired on 19.11.2019 at 2.40 PM. The injuries which were shown in the Postmortem report are as under:
(i). Abrasion present over right side forehead 4 CM above right eye brow size 3 X 2 CM;
(ii). Cut wound present over left cheek size .5 CM skin deep;
(iii). Rail pattern contusion present over emtino lateral aspect of right arm 8 CM above left elbow upper end medially oblique in shape size 9 X 3 CM;
iv. Rail pattern contusion present over anterior lateral aspect of right thigh 12 CM above right knee transversely in size 12 X 3 CM;
v. Contusion present over lateral aspect of left lower leg 15 CM below left knee size 6 X 4 CM;
vi. Multiple abrasion present over dorsum aspect of right finger various in size and shape size 1 X 1 cm to 1.5 X 1 CM;
4. From perusal of the Postmortem report, it is apparent that there are six injuries on the body of deceased including abrasion present over right side of forehead 4 CM above right eyebrow whereas, doctors of BIMR Hospital had reported that no external injury was seen on the body of deceased. State counsel on 24.2.2021 h
AI
Presence of head injury and antemortem injuries influenced the court's decision in rejecting the anticipatory bail application.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of medical opinions, debatable circumstances, and the petitioner's age and health condition in granting anticipatory bail.
Bail can be granted if the nature of alleged offenses does not justify custodial detention, particularly when the accused has clean antecedents and no immediate act causing fatal consequences is esta....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.