Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 435 (JK)

Kalu Ram v. State of J&K

2020-08-25

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2020
JUDGMENT The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking interim bail for medical treatment of his eight years old daughter, who is suffering from serious heart ailment. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody for the last more than 15 months and is presently lodged in the Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu. He was arrested on 02.07.2018. It is further stated that the applicant was granted interim bail by the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu(hereinafter to be referred as ‘trial court’) with effect from 03.06.2019 to 12.06.2019. He further states that the applicant is the only earning member in the family and he being in custody, the family of the applicant cannot afford proper medical treatment to the daughter of the applicant, as such, for the medical treatment of his daughter, he has filed the present application for grant of interim bail, after the bail application was rejected by the learned trial court on 23.09.2019. The applicant has placed on record the medical prescription regarding the ailment of his daughter. 3. Despite number of opportunities granted to the respondent-Union Territory of J&K, objections have not been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant insisted that the matter be considered in absence of the objections and, as such, the matter is taken up for final consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, in his arguments, has reiterated the grounds those have been narrated by him in his application. 5. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that the applicant is facing trial for commission of offence under section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act) in FIR No. 59/2018 of Police Station, Janipur Jammu. He further argued that the prosecution is leading its evidence and some witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution, therefore, at this stage, the applicant cannot be enlarged on bail on this ground. 6. Heard and considered. 7. This is an admitted fact that the applicant was arrested on 02.07.2018 and since then he has been in custody except for ten days when he was granted bail by the learned trial court. 6. Heard and considered. 7. This is an admitted fact that the applicant was arrested on 02.07.2018 and since then he has been in custody except for ten days when he was granted bail by the learned trial court. A perusal of order dated 01.06.2019 reveals that the learned trial court had already granted interim bail to the applicant for a period of ten days with effect from 03.06.2019 to 12.06.2019 so as to enable him to provide medical treatment of his daughter and the applicant has miserably failed to so do and yet again, on similar ground, the instant application has been filed. 8. The applicant is facing trial for commission of offence under section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. It is not disputed by the applicant that the alleged contraband involved in the case falls within the category of commercial quantity and rigors of section 37 of the Act applies in the case of the applicant. The applicant was already granted interim bail approximately one year back by the learned trial court but despite that the applicant did not provide medical treatment to the minor daughter. The daughter of the applicant is more than one year at present. In the present application it has been stated that the applicant be granted interim bail so that he can provide treatment to her daughter from outside the Union Territory as there are lack of medical facilities in Union Territory. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record medical prescription dated 13.08.2020 in which it is stated that the baby girl is a heart patient and her condition is very bad and also her parents are unable to arrange the money. When the applicant is not in a position to arrange the money for treatment of her daughter from the hospitals located in Union Territory then how he can afford to take the minor daughter outside the Union Territory. Nothing has been placed on record that the minor daughter is to be operated on a particular day for which the presence of the applicant is required. This Court does not find any good ground at this stage to grant interim bail to the applicant. However, the applicant shall be at liberty to approach the trial court afresh if the need arises in future. 9. This Court does not find any good ground at this stage to grant interim bail to the applicant. However, the applicant shall be at liberty to approach the trial court afresh if the need arises in future. 9. In view of the above, no case for grant of interim bail is made out, as such, this application is dismissed.