ਪੀੜਤ ਧਿਰ ਦੇ ਹੱਕ ਵਿਚ ਆਏ ਮਹੱਤਵਪਰਨ ਫੈਸਲੇ – ਪਾਰਟ 1 (ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਉਮਰ, ਬਿਮਾਰੀ, ਮਾਨਸਿਕ ਸਥਿਤੀ ਆਦਿ

ਪੀੜਤ ਧਿਰ ਦੇ ਹੱਕ ਵਿਚ ਆਏ ਮਹੱਤਵਪਰਨ ਫੈਸਲੇ – ਪਾਰਟ 1

(ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਉਮਰ, ਬਿਮਾਰੀ, ਮਾਨਸਿਕ ਸਥਿਤੀ ਆਦਿ)

( Important judgments in fafour of victim)

 1. ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦਾ ਸਮਾਜ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੁਤਬਾ ਗ੍ਰਿਫਤਾਰੀ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਇੱਕੋ ਇੱਕ ਅਧਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਣ ਸਕਦਾ।

Case (i) : Ram Gobind Upadhayay vs. Sudarshan Singh 2002 Cr.L.J.1849, AIR 2002 SC 1475

“…. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. …”

Case (ii) : State of Maharashtra Vs. Anand Chintaman Dighe, 1990 Cr.L.J. 788, 1990 AIR (SC) 625

Para “9. ….. The Court below misdirected itself in refusing to look into such statements and concluding that it is a case for granting bail taking into account only the position held by the respondent in the party. The court clearly erred in disposing of the application for bail.”

2. ਸਰਕਾਰ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਆਪਣੀ ਸ਼ਹਾਦਤ ਨੂੰ ਮੁਕੰਮਲ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਲਈਆਂ ਗਈਆਂ ਪੇਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਿਆਦਾ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਅਧਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਣ ਸਕਦੀ।

Case : Kumari Suman Pandey vs. State of UP, 2007 Cr.L.J. 1789 (SC)

Para “13. ….. High Court instead has unnecessarily emphasized on the number of adjournments which, as noted above, has no relevance. The order of bail passed by the High Court is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.”

3. ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਲੰਬੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਤੋਂ ਜੇਲ੍ਹ ਵਿੱਚ ਚਲੀ ਆ ਰਹੀ ਬੰਦੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਅਧਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਣ ਸਕਦੀ।

Case (i) : Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others, 2002 Crl.L.J.1849 (1)

Para “9. The consideration of the period of one year spent in jail cannot in our view be a relevant consideration in the matter of grant of bail more so by reason of the fact that the offence charged is that of murder under Section 302, IPC having the punishment of death or life imprisonment – it is a heinous crime against the society and as such the Court ought to be rather circumspect and cautious in its approach in a matter which stands out to be a social crime of very serious nature.”

Case (ii) : State of U.P. through CBI Vs.Amarmani Tripathi, 2005 Cr.L.J.4149 (SC)

Para “19. ….. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (in Amarmani’s case the period was 7 months) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail. ….. “

Case (iii) : Danpat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr.L.J.619 (Rajsthan – HC)

Para “4. I … I am of the view that merely because the trial is likely to take time due to number of witnesses is not a ground to enlarge the accused on bail particularly in the case of offences of serious nature or there is no fault on the part of the prosecution. …”

4. ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਛੋਟੀ ਉਮਰ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਅਧਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਣ ਸਕਦੀ।

Case : Ramesh Vs. State of Haryana, 1997 (2) RCR (Crl) 337, 1997 Cr.L.J.2848 (P & H – HC)

Para “8. ….. The fact that the accused are young boys is no ground for granting them bail. By granting them bail in an offence which is serious this Court is rather of the opinion that it would shake the people’s confidence in Courts.”

5. ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਵੱਡੀ ਉਮਰ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਅਧਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਣ ਸਕਦੀ।

Case : Smt.Lahari Devi Vs.State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.J. 1400 (Rajsthan – HC)

Para “4. ….. I am of the view that though the petitioner is an aged lady of 75 and that she may not be keeping good health but she is not entitled for bail on that ground in such cases.”

6. ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਬਿਮਾਰੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਅਧਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਣ ਸਕਦੀ।

Case : Ram Parkash Pandey Vs. State of U.P. 2001 Cr,L.J.4247, 2001 AIR SC 3592 (SC)

Para 11.” ….. The alleged ailment of the 2nd respondent is also not such as required releasing him on bail. The 2nd respondent can always apply to the jail authorities to see that he gets the required medical treatment.”

7. ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦਾ ਮਾਨਸਿਕ ਅਸੰਤੁਲਨ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਅਧਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਣ ਸਕਦਾ।

Case : Om Parkash Dwivedi vs. State, 1996 Cr.L.J.603 (Allahabad – HC)

Para “15. The learned counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant is a person who sometime gets disbalanced and it may have been for this reason that he may have attacked the presiding Officer. This fact is denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. This is also a matter which cannot be decided at this stage and will have to be looked into by the court at the appropriate stage.”