Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkishore @ Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4298 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAMKISHORE @ KALLU S/O SHRI SURENDRA SINGH
SIKARWAR, AGE 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O NANDPURA POLICE STATION
DEVGARH PARGANA JOURA DISTRICT-MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SAMEER KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION JOURA DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUBHASH SINGH @ PAPPU SINGH S/O SHRI DARU
SINGH SIKARWAR R/O VILLAGE NANDPURA AT
PRESENT SIDH NAGAR, MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH KUSHWAHA - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL
AND SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE AND SHRI PRAKHAR DENGULA - ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 - COMPLAINANT)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Tahariya - Assistant Professor (ENT) Jaya Arogya Hospital, Gwalior and Shri Dr. Mahesh Sharma - Specialist (ENT), District Hospital, Morena are present in person.
2. This second criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled 2 Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the order dated 17-01-2022 (Annexure A-1) passed in Bail Application No.24/2022 by Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Morena whereby bail application filed by the appellant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that he is not pressing this appeal on merits because earlier appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Atrocities) Act vide Cr.A. No.905 of 2022 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13th September, 2023. Against the said order, SLP was preferred vide SLP (Cri) No.11817 of 2023 but vide order dated 05-02-2024, the said SLP was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to apply for bail after six months before the High Court so that meanwhile, the trial can be completed, therefore, appellant is not pressing this appeal on merits. However, according to learned counsel for the appellant, his son Veer Pratap Singh aged about 09 years is suffering hearing impairment and he is 100% deaf and dumb therefore, he intends to take him at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital New Delhi for Cochlear Implant Surgery, which may entail expenses of Rs.20 lacs. Hence, he prays that he be released for some period so that he can undertake surgery of his son and look-after him.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer and submits that allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. He was involved in indiscriminate firing which resulted into the death of a pillion rider. Two other persons were also suffered injuries because of firing of the appellant. Therefore, offence against the appellant is in respect of Section 302 of IPC as well as Section 307 of IPC. Besides, it appears that after SLP was dismissed 3 on 05-02-2024, family members of the appellant took his son to one Doctor at Delhi on 18-03-2024 where he referred the treatment i.e. Cochlear Implant Surgery, therefore, appellant is seeking bail on the pretext which is not so bonafide in nature. It is an attempt to come out to intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer and submits that earlier also, appellant was granted bail and has misused his medical condition and when he was hospitalized while in custody then he went to Dholpur to attend a wedding illegally. Head Constable Chauhan who took the appellant to Dholpur was placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Morena. Therefore, appellant is mischievous and his grievance cannot be relied upon.
6 . Dr. Rajendra Kumar Tahariya - Assistant Professor (ENT) Jaya Arogya Hospital, Gwalior and Shri Dr. Mahesh Sharma - Specialist (ENT), District Hospital, Morena who are ENT specialist, were asked about the ailment of son of the appellant. They fairly submitted that BERA (Brainstem Evoked Response Audiometry) Test report indicates that patient (son of present appellant) has some issue with hearing but they were of the opinion that this type of surgery is generally useful till 5-6 years of age and thereafter chance of success of surgery is very limited.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the present case, appellant is seeking bail on the ground of medical condition of his son. Earlier his bail application was dismissed by this Court as referred above. Later on, the Apex Court also dismissed the SLP preferred by the appellant and directed the trial Court to complete the trial within six months.
9. So far as medical ailment of the son of the appellant is concerned, 4 medical prescription of the son of the appellant is dated 15-03-2024 and the SLP was dismissed on 05-02-2024 therefore, thought of undergoing medical treatment was conceived after the SLP was dismissed.
10. Be that as it may.
11. In the present case, the surgery which is to be undertaken by the son of the appellant, can be taken care of by the other family members of the appellant. Besides that, huge investment is required in the treatment. Material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
1 2 . Looking to the nature of allegations and the fact that medical condition of son of the appellant can be addressed by other family members, no case of interference is made out. Application sans merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE vc VARSHA CHATURVEDI 2024.05.03 12:48:43 +05'30'