Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. He would further submit that it is settled law that mere diary entries cannot be read into evidence and the same are inadmissible in law especially without independent evidence of their trustworthiness and the same cannot be relied upon as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla [(1998) 3 SCC 410], L.K. Advani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Criminal Revision Petition No. 265 of 1996], Common Cause Vs. Union of India. He would further submit that it is alleged that the applicant does not satisfy the triple-test for grant of bail i.e. the applicant is a flight risk or would influence any witness or would tamper with any evidence. In any event, there is no material on record to suggest that the applicant does not satisfy the triple-test. He would further submit that there is no allegation that the applicant would either tamper with any evidence or influence any witness, if granted bail. Learned trial Court has erroneously observed that there is an apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail, he may Influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, it is well settled law that mere apprehensions of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence can never be a ground to decline bail to any accused, unless there is cogent supporting material as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI [2020 13 SCC 337]. He would further submit that the applicant is suffering from various serious medical conditions, however, he has not been provided proper medical treatment by the authorities in jail and in absence of providing medical treatment to the applicant, he has undergone severe weight loss and has become extremely weak during the duration of his custody. He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Court and would pray for releasing he applicant on bail.