The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of a accused charged of attempt to murder saying that it appears to be inherently improbable that the bullet which enters from the front side of the chest would cause an exit wound on the front side of the chest itself and it appears that the doctors have propounded a false medical report in collusion with the injured person, so as to cause wrongful harm to the accused persons.

A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Ghanshyam Pandit.

The application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 16.06.2022 at 18:30 hours against the applicant, one Pranav Sikka and some unknown persons alleging that the applicant had called the informant’s son by making a phone call at 4:00 p.m and at about 4:30 p.m the informant’s son informed his cousin Prince through phone that the applicant, Pranav Sikka and other persons have beaten him up and have shot him, he was injured and was reaching Government Hospital.

Medico legal examination report of the informant’s injured son was prepared by SBD District Hospital, Saharanpur on 16.06.2022. All the injuries were opined to have been caused by some hard and blunt object.

In the statement of the injured recorded under Section 161 CrPC he reiterated the FIR version and he stated that on the exhortation of the applicant, Shivam and Yuvraj caught hold of his hands and the applicant and one Shaurya fired gun shots with pistols being carried by them and one bullet hit his chest.

He further stated that several of the other co-accused persons were also carrying pistols. A pistol is said to have been recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Shaurya Thakur and a pistol was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant.

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in a case bearing Case under Sections 323, 504, 326, 354 IPC and the Police has submitted final report in the aforesaid case which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur by means of an order dated 28.02.2020 and it has been stated that besides the aforesaid case, the applicant has no other criminal antecedents.

The applicant has been languishing in jail since 16.08.2022.

Per contra, the Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

“I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. What prima facie appears from the material available on record at this stage is that although the FIR alleges that the applicant, Pranav Sikka and some other persons had beaten up the informant’s son and have shot him. In the statement of the injured, it has been stated that the other accused persons had caught hold of his hand and the applicant and one Shaurya Thakur had fired shots with intention to kill him; that although the injured stated in his statement that one bullet had hit on his chest, in the medico legal examination of the injured prepared by the SBD District Hospital, Saharanpur, no injury caused by gunshot has been reported; that the medico legal examination report of the injured person prepared by the SBD District Hospital, Saharanpur mentions two muscle deep lacerated wounds, which were advised to be kept under observation and an abrasion; the injured was taken to a private facility Hospital where he was admitted on 16.06.2022 and discharged on 20.06.2022 and in the case summary prepared on 29.06.2022, the doctor has mentioned an entry wound and an exit wound, both on the front side of the chest.

Without making observations which may affect the merit of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant Ghanshyam Pandit be released on bail in Case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

“Before parting with the case, the Court is constrained to take note of the fact that although in the medico legal examination of the injured person conducted in the Government Hospital the doctor has reported two lacerated wounds measuring 1.0 c.m X 1.0 c.m, on upper part of chest, 3.0 c.m away from left nipple, muscle deep and second measuring 16.0 X 0.5 c.m, over left side of the chest 5.0 c.m. below left nipple, muscle deep, in the case summary prepared by a private Doctor on 29.06.2022, it has been mentioned that the injured had been admitted to the private Hospital on 16.06.2022 and he was discharged from the Hospital on 20.06.2022 and he had been injured by gunshot and was having an entry wound and an exit wound, both on the front side of the chest. Dr Lalit Kaushik has given a statement during investigation that the injured had two gunshot wounds, entry point of the bullied was above the left nipple and an exit point of the bullet was below the left nipple. Dr Imran who has prepared the supplementary report has also given a similar statement. No entry wound or exit wound has been reported on any part of the body, except on the front side of the chest. Prima facie, it appears to be inherently improbable that the bullet which enters from the front side of the chest would cause an exit wound on the front side of the chest itself and it appears that the aforesaid doctors have prepound a false medical report in collusion with the injured person, so as to cause wrongful harm to the accused persons.

The aforesaid facts, prima facie, raise a serious suspicion regarding the conduct of Dr Lalit Kaushik and Dr Imran of VBROS Hospital, who have examined and treated the injured Raman Chaudhary. Therefore, this Court thinks it appropriate to direct the Medical Council of India to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the aforesaid Doctors, namely, Dr Lalit Kaushik and Dr Imran of V-Bros Hospitals, Delhi Road, (Opp. Regency Garden), Saharanpur and to take suitable action against them pursuant to the enquiry report”, the order reads.

Uttar Pradesh on Sunday announced that Covid induced curfew in all the districts will be lifted except for Meerut, Saharanpur, and Gorakhpur, ACS Information Navneet Sehgal told the news agency ANI.

The decision came after the number of active cases of Covid-19 goes below the 600 marks in all the districts except for the three districts. However, the lockdown will continue in these districts as they continue to report a high number of Covid infections daily.

Last week, the Uttar Pradesh government had decided to ease restrictions in 55 districts where active cases have dropped below 600. It had imposed stricter curfew regulations in another 20 districts including state capital Lucknow, Noida, and Greater Noida that fall under the Gautam Buddha Nagar district, as well as in Ghaziabad as they continue to report a high number of Covid infections daily.

The educational institutions like schools, colleges, coaching centers as well as markets in these districts will continue to remain closed. 

However, restaurants, cafes, and eateries will also remain shut for dining. Home delivery is permitted to function. Notably, night curfew will continue across the state for the time being. During the night curfew, the lockdown restrictions will be placed from 8 PM to 5 AM.

The authorities also revealed that even though the restrictions are being eased in the other districts of the state, which reported less than 600 Covid-19 cases, night and weekend curfews will continue to be in effect. The night curfew will commence from 8 pm and will remain in place till 5 am. 

Read Also: Platform of IMA shall not be use for propagating any religion: Delhi Court

The Uttar Pradesh authorities had said entry to Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) protected monuments will remain shut till June 15. 

However, the number of active Covid-19 cases in Uttar Pradesh has gone below 20,000 for the first time since its second wave started in April.

Meanwhile, the recovery rate in Uttar Pradesh has also improved to 97.6 percent as 16.56 lakh patients have recovered from the infection. Currently, the state has less than 20,000 active Covid-19 cases for the first time since its peak in April-end. It is at 19,438, of which, 11,178 are in home isolation, the health department said.

The Allahabad High Court recently granted protection to a homosexual couple, who alleged they were being threatened with violation of their rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India only on the ground of their sexual orientation.

The division bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Poonam Rani and another.

The Writ Petition has been preferred for a direction to respondent 2 and 3 not to adopt any coercive process against the Petitioners and for a further direction to respondent 4 to 6 not to interfere in the peaceful lives of the petitioners.

“The petition highlights the stark reality of the society where the citizens are facing discrimination at the hands of society only on account of their sexual orientation despite it being well settled that sexual orientation is innate to human beings,” the Court remarked.

It is averred that the first petitioner is a major woman having born on January 10, 1998 and the second is also a major with date of birth on January 5, 1999. Both petitioners are in a live-in relationship for a couple of years and are voluntarily living with each other on account of their sexual orientation. They are also facing resistance from their family members.

The Court, while quoting the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, granted protection from harassment to the couple.

In the case of Navtej Singh Johar (supra), the Apex Court had considered the plight of LGBT community in context of the constitutional principles and had struck down Section 377 of IPC.

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as respectfully considered the judgments cited at Bar. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment of Navtej Singh Johar (Supra) is quoted as under:‐

(1) Sexual orientation is an intrinsic element of liberty, dignity, privacy, individual autonomy and equality.

(2) Intimacy between consenting adults of the same-sex is beyond the legitimate interests of the state.

(3) Sodomy laws violate equality by targeting a segment of the population for their sexual orientation.

(4) Such a law perpetrates stereotypes, lends authority of the state to societal stereotypes and has a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom.

(5) The right to love and to a partner, to find fulfillment in a same-sex relationship is essential to a society which believes in freedom under a constitutional order based on rights.

(6) Sexual orientation implicates negative and positive obligations on the State. It not only requires the state not to discriminate, but also calls for the state to recognise rights which bring true fulfillment to same-sex relationships.

“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court being a constitutional Court is duty-bound to monitor and observe the Constitutional morality as well as the rights of the citizens which are under threat only on account of the sexual orientation, as such considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur to extend suitable protection to the petitioners in the event they approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur for the necessary protection and ensure that no harassment is caused to them,” the order reads.

Read Also: A new hybrid: Post-Covid hearings in Delhi HC

New Delhi (ILNS): The Allahabad High Court has directed the Regional Officer of the Pollution Control Board of Saharanpur to investigate a complaint that an industrial plant in Rampur Majbata Baroon village is creating problems for a hospital and a school.

The court has asked the board to take action within 3 weeks as per rules.

The order was passed by a division bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Siddharth Verma, while disposing of the PIL of Yashpal Singh.

It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the plant, situated in close proximity of the hospital and school, was causing huge public nuisance.

The high court said: “Having considered the nature of dispute sought to be agitated, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Petition for writ by directing the Regional Officer, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur to examine the entire issue in the light to the applicable provisions, provided the petitioner submits a copy of this writ petition along with copy of this order before him within a period of three weeks from today.”

Read Also: Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeks stay on release of short film ‘Priya’ on late actor Sushant Singh Rajput