Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1289 (JHR)

Sanjay @ Dr. Sanjay Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-31

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 147/148/ 149/323/326/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27(1) of the Arms Act in connection with Deoghar (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 160 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 548 of 2012. 3. According the FIR, it is alleged that there was an accident in which two persons were injured, who were brought to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, from where one of them was referred to the nursing home of the petitioner in the late nights. It is alleged that when the injured was taken to the nursing home of the petitioner by his friends and family members, the door was' not being opened and they were knocking the doors' and even the ambulance driver was blowing the siren of the ambulance. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner Came to his window and started talking on mobile phone, whereupon the police came, there. In the meantime the injured was taken to the ICU, but it is alleged that there was some connotation, in which, the petitioner who was armed with gun, fired point blank, injuring one Sanjeev Mishra, who subsequently died. 4. From the FIR and from the case diary, it appears that there are two facets of the prosecution story. According to the first story, it is the petitioner who had fired point blank upon the deceased, who subsequently died, but according to the other story, there was a connotation in the nursing home of the petitioner in' which, the friends and family members of the injured victim had committed mischief in the nursing home of the petitioner, during which someone fired the gun, which hit the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements of the eye-witnesses, who were injured in the occurrence and who had come along with the victim, in which these witnesses have stated, that it was the petitioner who had fired the gun on the deceased. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements of the eye-witnesses, who were injured in the occurrence and who had come along with the victim, in which these witnesses have stated, that it was the petitioner who had fired the gun on the deceased. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements of the police officer, who was admittedly present at the time of occurrence and whose statement is also recorded in the case diary, who has stated that it was some other person who had fired the gun on the deceased and the deceased was also taken to the ICU for treatment by the petitioner and subsequently referred to RIMS, Ranchi. More or less, similar story has been repeated by the other witnesses also whose statements have been recorded in the case diary. Learned counsel submitted that though the case was initially instituted for the offence under Section 302 and order sections of the IPC, but after investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet under Section 304 and other sections of the IPC, and has accordingly prayed for bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the witnesses have specifically said that it was the petitioner who had fired the gun on the deceased from point blank range and it is submitted that even though the petitioner is not a surgeon and was not qualified to treat the deceased. he had treated the deceased and subsequently referred him to RIMS, Ranchi, but the deceased died in the way. It has also been submitted that the gun had been seized from the house of the petitioner as is apparent from paragraph 12 of the case diary. However, learned counsel for the informant could not point anything from the case diary to show that it was the DBBL gun, seized from the house of the petitioner, which was actually used in the occurrence. However, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that there are two stories to the occurrence. However, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that there are two stories to the occurrence. According to the first story, it was the petitioner who had fired the gun from the point blank range, upon the informant, whereas, according to the other story, which is also supported by the police officer, who was present at the place of occurrence, that it was some other person who fired the gun upon the informant. The fact however remains that all the witnesses had stated that there was connotation at nursing home of the petitioner and mischief was committed at the nursing home of the petitioner in the late hours of the night. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case. I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Dr. Sanjay @ Dr. Sanjay Kumar is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10.000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri G.K. Tiwary, learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, or his successor, in connection with Deoghar (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 160 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 548 of 2012. Bail granted.