JUDGMENT : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. Heard through video conferencing 1. Case Diary is available. 2. This second Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed for grant of bail. First Criminal Appeal for grant of bail which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 5639/2020, was dismissed on 09/11/2020. 3. The appellant has been arrested on 26/08/2020 in connection with Crime No. 108/2020 registered at Police Station Bahadurpur, District Ashok Nagar for offence under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 436 of IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(iv), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. The first Criminal Appeal was filed merely on the ground of ill-health. After considering the medical documents filed by the appellant, this Court by order dated 09/11/2020 dismissed the criminal appeal with a direction to the State that in case, if any treatment is required, then the same shall be provided to the appellant without any failure. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09/11/2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5639/2020, the appellant preferred a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6025/2020 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 14/12/2020, with the following observations:- "Head learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, submits that the petitioner will be referred to AIIMS at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh within this week for assessment and if necessary, for further treatment, as per the norms prescribed in that regard. In view of the statement, nothing more is required to be done in this Special Leave Petition, at this stage. Depending on the assessment of AIIMS at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh further course of action can be decided by the jail authorities, as per law. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of." 6. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant had moved an application under Section 366 of the Jail Manual before the Special Judge, Ashok Nagar. The Medical Officer, Jail Dispensary, Central Jail, Bhopal, by his medical report dated 28/12/2020 has opined that the Court may consider the release of the appellant under Section 366 of the Jail Manual. However, the said application has been rejected by order dated 28/12/2020. The Medical Officer, Jail Dispensary, Central Jail, Bhopal, by his medical report dated 28/12/2020 has opined that the Court may consider the release of the appellant under Section 366 of the Jail Manual. However, the said application has been rejected by order dated 28/12/2020. It is further submitted that since the physical condition of the appellant is deteriorating day-by-day, therefore, he may be granted bail. 7. Per contra, the Criminal Appeal is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the State. 8. By referring to the medical report dated 23/12/2020 sent by the Medical Officer, Jail Dispensary, Central Jail, Bhopal, it was submitted that it was nowhere mentioned by the Medical Officer that the appellant may be released under Section 366 of the Jail Manual. It is submitted that in paragraph 14 of the report, it was specifically mentioned that in case if the detenue is referred to Higher Centre/Medanta Hospital, New Delhi, then patient is got examined in AIIMS, New Delhi and this procedure is adopted in all the cases. 9. It is further submitted that the medical documents which have been filed by the appellant clearly show that prior to his arrest, he had never undergone such extensive medical treatment. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP (Crl.) filed by the appellant, has taken care of health of the appellant and has already issued necessary instructions which shall be followed with all sincerity. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the allegations against the appellant are that he had caused an injury on the head of the deceased by means of a farsa and the appellant is the main accused. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The appellant had filed an application under Section 366 of the Jail Manual on 23/12/2020 and on the same day, the Medical Officer, Jail Dispensary, Central Jail, Bhopal had given his report dated 23/12/2020. According to this report, the appellant is suffering from Vericose Vein Left Leg. Thereafter, the appellant was admitted in the Hospital and as per the report dated 29/10/2020 issued by the Medical Board, Government Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, the appellant is suffering from DVT with Suspecting Venous Thromboembolism. Thereafter, on 05/12/2020 another medical report from the Medical Board of Government Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal was received in which it was mentioned that "Not Achieve target INR inspite higher doses indicating possibility of PE. Thereafter, on 05/12/2020 another medical report from the Medical Board of Government Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal was received in which it was mentioned that "Not Achieve target INR inspite higher doses indicating possibility of PE. That can lead to respiratory failure. So patient should be referred to Higher Centre. He should not be treated in Jail. Prolonged treatment is required." and accordingly, the appellant was proposed to be referred to AIIMS, Bhopal. Accordingly, the appellant was taken to AIIMS, Bhopal which pointed out that as the patient is already under treatment at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon and had relief, therefore, he may be referred to Higher Superspeciality Centre/Medanta Hospital for further management and accordingly, the following report was given:- tsy Á'kklu mDr fopkjk/khu canh dk 'kkldh; esfMdy dkWyst gkWfLiVy gehfn;k fpfdRlky; ,oa ,El Hkksiky esa ijh{k.k djk pqdk gS muds erkuqlkj mDr fopkjk/khu canh dks vfxze mipkj gsrq gk;j lsUVj@esnkUrk vLirky ubZ fnYyh jsQj djus gsrq dgk x;k gSA lHkh fopkjk/khu ,oa nf.Mr cafn;ksa ds esfMdy dkWyst vLirky ;k ,El Hkksiky ls jsQjy gksus ij vf[ky Hkkjrh; vk;qfoKku laLFkku ubZ fnYyh esa ijh{k.k djk;k tkrk gSA lkekU;r% ;gh ÁfØ;k dk lHkh ds fy;s ikyu fd;k tkrk gSA vr% LokLF; Áfrosnu mipkj vfHkys[k layXu dj vko';d dk;Zokgh ,oa vfxze mipkj ds Li"V fn'kk funsZ'k gsrq vkidh vksj lknj Ásf"kr gSA 12. Thereafter, again on 28/12/2020, the Medical Officer, Jail Dispensary, Central Jail, Bhopal gave another report and opined that action may be taken under Section 366 of the Jail Manual. There was no reason for the Medical Officer, Central Jail, Bhopal to change his opinion within five days. 13. Be that whatever it may. 14. The facts of the case is that the appellant is suffering from Varicose Vein Left Leg. The Supreme Court has already issued necessary instructions for the treatment of the appellant. Thus, in the light of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) filed by the appellant, no further direction is required and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the appellant for his release under Section 366 of the Jail Manual. 15. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, according to the prosecution case, on 26/05/2020 at about 5:00 PM, Mohar Singh, younger brother of the complainant Khillan Singh was cutting a babool tree. 15. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, according to the prosecution case, on 26/05/2020 at about 5:00 PM, Mohar Singh, younger brother of the complainant Khillan Singh was cutting a babool tree. Co-accused Balram Yadav came there and claimed that the tree as well as the land belongs to him and, therefore, he should not cut the same. In reply, it was informed by Mohar Singh that the tree belongs to him. On this issue, Balram Yadav started abusing the complainant and Mohar Singh and extended a threat that now, he would call the present appellant who is his son. Thereafter, Balram Yadav contacted the appellant on mobile phone and after half an hour, the appellant and other co-accused persons came on two four wheelers. The appellant assaulted on the head of Khuman Singh, the father of the complainant who was sitting in the courtyard of his house, by means of a farsa. The other co-accused persons assaulted the complainant as well as the deceased and other injured persons. Thereafter, the appellant and other co-accused persons set the house of the complainant on fire, as a result of which his belongings, food-grains and clothes were burnt. In the postmortem report of deceased Khuman Singh, following injuries were found:- "(1) Stitched wound present on the forehead and have 12 stitches. (2) A abrasion and bleeding and swelling on private part. (3) Massive external haemorrhage present on frontal region. (4) Intradual haemorrhage of brain is present after open the skull in PM Process. (5) An abrasion of size 7x 2 cm surrounding area present over the right forearm (6) Black clotted blood found in occipital region of brain after open the skull in PM process." 16. Thus, it is clear that a solitary blow by farsa on the head of deceased Khuman Singh, given by the appellant proved to be fatal. Furthermore, Khuman Singh had nothing to do with the controversy/hot talk between his son Mohar Singh and Balram Yadav, the father of the appellant and the innocent person aged about 60 years, who was sitting in the courtyard of his house, was brutally murdered by the present appellant. 17. Furthermore, Khuman Singh had nothing to do with the controversy/hot talk between his son Mohar Singh and Balram Yadav, the father of the appellant and the innocent person aged about 60 years, who was sitting in the courtyard of his house, was brutally murdered by the present appellant. 17. It is next contended by the counsel for the appellant that at the time of argument of first Criminal Appeal, it was projected by the State Counsel that the appellant has a criminal history and as many as many as 34 criminal cases have been registered against him. It is submitted tat the State Counsel had not pointed out the outcome of the said criminal cases. It is further submitted that the appellant has filed list of 33 cases which were registered against him out of which in 27 cases, he has already been acquitted, whereas the present case is pending and out of remaining five cases, in four cases preventive measures have been taken against the appellant and in year 2017 an order of externment was passed. Thus, it is clear that when the appellant has already been acquitted in all the criminal cases which were registered against him, then it cannot be said that the applicant has a criminal history. 18. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the appellant has filed the copies of judgments of some of the cases, from which it is clear that in most of the cases, the complainant had compounded the offence or in some cases the complainant has turned hostile. Therefore, it is clear that the witnesses have no courage to come forward against the appellant. 19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 20. Without entering into controversy as to why the witnesses had turned hostile or had compounded the offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that looking to the serious nature of allegation against the appellant, no case is made out for grant of bail. The Criminal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.