1985 PLP 195 (SCMR)

The learned counsel has in order to support his contention that it was a case under section 307 and in any case under section 326 and as both the offences are punishable with imprisonment for life the reason given for allowing bail to the respondents is unsustainable, relied on the following particulars in the medical certificate: "(1) Incised wound 10 c.m. x 3 c.m x 1.5 . c.m. on left side of parietal region of scalp. (2) Lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. on left side of occipital region of scalp. (3) Lacerated wound 3.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m.- x I c.m. on frontal area of scalp. (4) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m x 1 c .m. on root of nose (transversely). (5) Swelling 5 c.m. is 5 c.m. on interior aspect of distal one-third of left forearm Note:- The injured has been referred for X-Rays. The nature of all the above injuries will be communicated after the receipt of X-Rays. L. Nature of injuries. Reserved for X-Ray. (Simple, grievous or dangerous). probable duration of injured. The kind of weapon used or poison Injuries 1 and 4 are caused by suspected in case of poisoning. SHARP CUTTING WEAPON. Injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are cussed by HARD BLUNT SUB STANCE." It is clear that the learned Judge was not correctly informed about the particulars and nature of the injuries found by the doctor on the body of the victim. Thus for that reason it appears to be a simple case of genuine mistake. The injury No. 4 which is 3 x 1 x 1 c.m. is on the root of the nose and caused by a sharp-cutting weapon. The other injury with sharp-edged weapon is on the left side of head (partietal region). This incised wound is 10 x 3 x 1.5 c.m. Even if one of these injuries is grievous it would make a case at least under section 326/34, P.P.C. Therefore no further inquiry was needed in this behalf. Be that as it may there is no mention in the impugned order as to why injury No.l which was with a sharp-edged weapon and appears to be a substantial wound, could not be treated as one which would have endangered life. Nor it has been mentioned that, even if it is a simple injury, section 307 would not be attracted on account of the nature and location of this injury. There are certain other features also in this case, which have not been attended in the High Court before giving a verdict that was a case of "further inquiry". It needs to be clarified that bail ca be allowed (in a case otherwise allegedly falling under the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 467) under subsection (2) o section 487, Cr.P.C. when there are sufficient grounds, for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused but only on the condition when the Police Officer or the Court at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, comes to a definite conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-Bailable offence. Without this finding bail cannot be allowed under subsection (2) on mere ground that there are sufficient grounds f further inquiry. This aspect of the relevant law has also not bee brought to the notice of the learned Judge of the High Court. It is not the normal practice of this Court to interfere with the orders in bail matters passed by the Nigh Court, even in cases falling within the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section

487. Cr.P.C. However in cases of grave injustice or clear departure from law, this Court interferes with such an order or leaves the complainant party to the remedy provided by law under subsection (5) of section 487, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances of this case we do not consider it just and proper to grant leave to appeal and instead consider it a fit case where the petitioner should move the High Court under subsection (5) of section 487, Cr.P.C., for the cancellation of bail. With these observations this petition is dismissed. M . Z . M . Petition dismissed