Bombay High Court
Yusuf Khan S/O. Hussain Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 December, 2017
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
(1) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1414 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINIAL APPLICATION NO.5249 OF 2017
Yusuf Khan s/o. Hussain Khan
Age: 68 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o.Roza Bagh, Harsul Road,
Aurangabad. ..Petitioner
VERUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
2) Firoza w/o Fazal Patel
Age: 34 years, Occu.: House Wife,
R/o.Mulla Galli, Harsul,
Aurangabad.
3) Fazal s/o Sikandar patel
Age: 35 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o.Presently at Yerwada Hospital,
Pune.
(Through his Wife) ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Sagar S.Ladda
APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.S.Patil
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr.R.S.Deshmukh &
Mr.A.K.Bhosale
...
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:51:30 :::
(2) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
CORAM : PRAKASH D.NAIK, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd DECEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT:-
1) The petitioner challenges the order dated 28.9.2016
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.300 of 2013.
2) The petitioner is the father of deceased
Mohd.Hussain. The FIR was lodged with Begampura Police
Station vide Crime No.I-48 of 2013 for an offence u/s 302
r/w 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The husband of the
respondent No.2 Fazal Sikandar Patel was accused. The
Police completed investigation and filed a charge-sheet.
The petitioner's son was murdered on 7.4.2013. The
accused surrendered by preferring an application on
9.5.2013 and since then he is in custody.
3) The broad factual aspects are as follows:-
(i) The accused has filed Regular Bail Application
(3) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
bearing No.1031 of 2013 before the Court of District
and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The said application
was rejected on 17.8.2013.
(ii) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions
and at the time of committal Court asked accused
Fazal whether he wanted a lawyer and he stated that
he has engaged a private lawyer and signed on the
committal form.
(iii) After rejection of the regular bail, accused
approached this Court and filed an application for
bail bearing No.461 of 2014. The same was withdrawn.
(iv) On 24.2.2014 the accused preferred an
application before the Trial Court u/s 330 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. In the said application, it was
contended that he is suffering from mental disease
since several years and he is also suffering from
psychological disorders. The application was rejected
(4) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
on 25.9.2014.
(v) The accused preferred an application No.6050 of
2014 before this Court challenging the order dated
25.9.2014. The said application was allowed by this
Court vide order dated 19.12.2014 and the matter was
remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to
follow the procedure of Chapter XXV of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
(vi) The Trial Court thereafter, made an enquiry in
respect to unsoundness of the accused. The Medical
Superintendent of Regional Mental Hospital, Yerwada,
was called as Court witness. His evidence was
recorded and opportunity was given to the prosecution
and the accused to cross-examine. Several facts were
brought on record by prosecution to show that the
accused is of sound mind. Medical reports were
produced before the Court. The evidence of
Dr.Bhalchandra Donglikar, who is Medical
(5) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
Superintendent of Yerwada was also recorded and the
Trial Court vide order dated 25.2.2016, came to the
conclusion that accused is of sound mind and fit for
trial.
(vii) The respondent No.2 approached this Court by
preferring Criminal Application No.1398 of 2016. In
the said application, after hearing the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner, the Court vide order
dated 22.4.2016, again remanded the matter back to
the Trial Court to consider all the evidence and
medical papers, which is on record as well as
examine Dr.Gosawi, who was treating Doctor to the
accused in Regional Mental Hospital, Yerwada.
(viii) The Trial Court recorded the evidence of
Dr.Gosawi and opportunity was given to the accused
and the prosecution to cross-examine. In the cross-
examination, several facts were brought on record,
which indicates that the accused is not of unsound
(6) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
mind and is fit for trial.
(ix) The Trial Court passed an order dated 28.9.2016
declaring that the accused is of unsound mind and is
incapacable of making his defence. It was also
observed that further proceedings in this case needs
to be postponed as per Section 329 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
4) The petitioner challenges the order dated 28.9.2016
on several grounds. It is submitted that the Court
committed error in overlooking the evidence on record and
other material. The order passed by the Sessions Court
is bad in law. It is submitted that for first time the
accused filed an application u/s 330 of Code of Criminal
Procedure before the Trial Court on 24.2.2014. In the
said application in paragraph 8, it was mentioned that he
is taking treatment for mental disease and suffering from
psychological disorders since last many years. It is
submitted that the assertion is false since it was not
(7) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
brought to the notice of the Court at the earlier point
of time when he surrendered in Crime No.48 of 2013. He
had signed the said application and the Vakalatnama,
which shows that he is of sound mind. The accused
preferred an application for bail in which there was no
reference of his ailment of mental disorder. He had
also filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
In the say filed by wife of the accused in the said
proceedings, she did not disclose that accused is
suffering from mental illness. The grievance was made
for the first time on 24.2.2014. The accused and his
wife has filed a compromise deed on 8.12.2014 before the
Family Court in relation to the proceedings for
restitution of conjugal rights, which was signed by the
accused. There was no reference of ailment in the
consent deed. In paragraph 1 of the consent deed, it was
stated that accused is behind the bar and that he was not
pressurized by anyone to execute the settlement deed.
Therefore, he was of sound mind. He did not take that
defence in earlier proceedings. He is holding bank
(8) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
account and using credit card. It is submitted that
after recording evidence of Medical Superintendent and
medical papers produced by Medical Superintendent, the
Trial Court came to the conclusion that accused is not
person of unsound mind and he is fit for trial. When the
matter was remanded for recording the evidence, except
evidence of Dr.Gosavi, there was no new material to
consider the claim of the accused. The Court, however,
allowed the said application. The accused had purchased a
Car by obtaining loan from the bank and he has issued
cheques in that regard. He had contested the proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that
Dr.Gosavi in her cross-examination did not state any
symptoms of Schizophrenia in accused during medical
examination. There was no impairment in his memory. She
also stated that accused himself stated the history of
illness for which treatment was given to him. The
accused was used to do his own pursuits. It is submitted
that the order passed by the Sessions Court therefore,
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(9) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
5) The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out
the relevant documents in support of his aforesaid
submissions, which is part of compilation placed before
the Court. It was also pointed out that the accused was
prosecuted for the same offence vide case No.1841 of
2012, which had resulted in acquittal. There was no
defence of mental disorder in the said trial. The
Judgment was delivered on 25.9.2012 acquitting the
accused. There were several cases registered against
him. The learned counsel pointed out the evidence of
Dr.Bhalchandra Donglikar recorded by the Sessions Court
during the enquiry. The said witness has given certain
admissions. Recording of the evidence of the said
witness was completed on 8.2.2016. The learned counsel
also pointed out the evidence of treating Doctor i.e.
Dr.Yogita w/o.Ramchandra Gosavi, who is Medical Officer,
Regional Mental Hospital, Yerwada, Pune. She has stated
that as per her observation, the accused had elementary
hallucination and idea of persecuation. The Doctor has
( 10 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
not observed senseless conduct of the accused. She did
not observe that the patient has ever exhibited
disordered thinking. The accused was taking food
regularly. She has deposed that the activities of the
accused were not normal. He was suffering from simple
symptoms of Schizophrenia.
6) The learned counsel submitted that inspite of the
aforesaid circumstances and although there were no
changes in the circumstances after the case was remanded
back to the Court, the Sessions Court has passed the
impugned order, which has to be set aside.
7) The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3
opposed the reliefs sought by the petitioner. It is
submitted that the Sessions Court has considered all the
material on record including medical reports and has
passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the
Court has perused the documents on record and thereafter
has arrived at the conclusion stated in the impugned
( 11 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
order. The petitioner has no locus to challenge the said
order. He is neither the complainant nor the eye-witness
of the incident. The accused is facing prolong mental
health complexities. He is suffering from Schizophrenia
and Cannabis Abuse. The medical experts opined that he
is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. It is
submitted that the Court by its earlier order dated
19.12.2014, directed scrupulous implementation of
provisions of Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The accused was sent to Regional Mental
Hospital, Pune in pursuant to the directions dated
12.5.2015. He was examined at Regional Mental Hospital,
Pune and reports were submitted. The reports were
consistent on the points of indoor medication and the
accused is incapable of making his defence on account of
unsoundness of mind. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed
the reply and placed on record the medical reports. It
is submitted that the report of Visitors' Committee dated
15.10.2015 indicates that the accused is of unsound mind.
He is unfit for trial and unfit for discharge. He
( 12 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
continues to be under treatment. The report was
forwarded by Regional Mental Hospital, Pune to the
Sessions Court. The learned counsel also submits that
the report dated 21.12.2015 with regards to the opinion
of the Visitors' Committed, who has examined the accused
on 19.12.2015 also indicates that the accused is of
unsound mind and is unfit for trial.
8) It is submitted that prior to the aforesaid
admission of the accused he was admitted to the
Government Mental Hospital, Nagpur. The report of the
said hospital is also placed on record. It is submitted
that the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur
in it's report dated 17.6.2014 indicated that the accused
was medically examined and it is noted that he is
suffering from Schizophrenia with past history of
Cannabis Abuse. The ailment is of serious nature. The
counsel also placed on record the other medical case
papers from the Department of Psychiatrist, which also
indicate that the accused had shown abnormal behaviour.
( 13 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
It is further submitted that subsequent to the order
passed by this Court, the enquiry was held and accused
was declared to be fit for trial, which order was set
aside by this Court vide order dated 22.4.2016 and the
Court was directed to conduct enquiry. It is submitted
that Paranoid Schizophrenia is specified in DSM-IV and
ICD-10. The symptoms frequently observed in a patient
similar to symptoms reported in Mental Hospital in
respect of accused. The abstract of report of their
Psychiatrist were annexed to the reply. It is further
submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Trial Court
clearly states that the accused is of unsound mind and
incapable of making his defence. It is therefore
submitted that the petition may be dismissed.
9) I have perused the documents on record. It has seen
that earlier application u/s 330 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was rejected on 25.9.2014. The said order was
challenged before this Court by preferring Criminal
Application No.1398 of 2016. The matter was remanded
( 14 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
back to the Trial Court vide order dated 19.12.2014 for
following the procedure and for giving findings. The
Sessions Court again gave report that the accused is of
sound mind vide order dated 25.2.2016. The respondent
No.2 challenged the said order by preferring Criminal
Application No.1398 of 2016. The Court vide order dated
22.4.2016, again directed Trial Court to enquire into
unsoundness of mind. Thereafter, the impugned order dated
28.9.2016, was passed declaring that the petitioner is of
unsound mind and cannot make defence.
10) Begampura Police Station filed charge-sheet against
the accused u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accused surrendered and arrested on 9.5.2013. The
accused was detained under MPDA Act. He was shifted to
Nagpur Jail from Aurangabad. The detention order was
passed on 26.8.2013. He was produced for medical
examination in respect of his mental health before
Medical Officer at Government Medical College and
Hospital, Nagpur. The report dated 17.6.2014 was placed
( 15 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
on record before the Sessions Court, which discloses that
the accused was suffering from Schizophrenia and he was
in need of treatment as indoor patient in Psychiatric
Hospital. The application as stated above u/s 330 was
rejected on 25.9.2014 and the said order was set aside on
19.12.2014 and the matter was remanded back to the Trial
Court. The Court set aside the order passed by Sessions
Court below Exh.7 and Trial Court was directed to follow
procedure and give finding. The Court observed that the
Trial Court has not followed procedure under Section 329
of the Code to ascertain the unsoundness and incapacity
of accused and finding is required to be given by Trial
Court. At present, there is opinion of Medical Board
showing that accused is suffering from Schizophrenia.
Even thereafter, the Court rejected the application on
25.2.2016. The respondent No.2 preferred Criminal
Application No.1398 of 2016, before this Court. While
adjudicating the said application, it was pointed out
the the accused was examined by experts of Mental
Hospital, Yerwada and report dated 19.6.2015, 25.7.2015
( 16 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
and 27.8.2015, persistently suggest that accused is of
unsound mind and needs long terms treatment. It was also
submitted that report dated 27.8.2015 indicates that,
patient would required family support and environment,
which would be helpful for his speedy recovery. The
prosecution however, submitted that report of Mental
Hospital, Pune shows that accused is fit for trial. The
Court in its order observed that after examination of
accused, Doctor opined that accused is showing
improvements in Psychiatric symptoms, and he need
longterm treatment. Another report dated 23.7.2015, is
also on same line. The Trial Court while passing order
did not consider number of reports by experts.
Voluminous documents containing 168 pages produced by
Dr.Donglikar. Therefore, enquiry was not complete. The
accused was referred to a Psychiatric Hospital. He was
referred to the Regional Mental Hospital, Yerwada. Thus
it is apparent that, the Court initiated enquiry and
called for the report from the Medical Superintendent
about the state of mental health of the accused. The
( 17 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
Court also summoned the Medical Officers. Dr.Bhalchandra
Donglikar, Medical Superintendent, who has deposed before
the Court as Court witness. The impugned order indicates
that the Medical Officer produced on record a compilation
of documents consisting of 168 pages containing notes of
observations recorded during medical examination and
treatment given to the patient. The Trial Court made an
enquiry and recorded evidence of Dr.Yogita w/o Ramchandra
Gosavi, who was treating accused from December 2015, till
June 2016. Thereafter, the order dated 28.9.2016 was
passed. It is therefore, crystal clear that the Trial
Court conducted enquiry as per directions in the Order
dated 22.4.2016.
11) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted
that there is no sufficient evidence to come to the
conclusion that the accused is suffering from
Schizophrenia and is not fit to defend himself.
12) The Sessions Court while passing the impugned order
( 18 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
has heard the learned Special Prosecutor and the accused
and after analyzing the material on record passed the
order. The submissions advanced by both the parties are
reflected in the said order. The Court analyzed the
evidence of Dr.Donglikar and Dr.Gosavi. Dr.Donglikar is
Medical Superintendent of Regional Mental Hospital,
Yerwada, Pune. He deposed that the accused is suffering
from Schizophrenia and showing improvements and needs
longterm treatment and is unable to take defence. He was
cross-examined on certain aspects and he also admitted
the noting made by CW-2. Dr.Gosavi stated that the
patient is fit for trial. The admissions given by the
said witness, which were part of record and it is taken
into consideration by the Trial Court after analyzing the
evidence. However, the Court observed that there was no
material available on record that Dr.Donglikar is
interested in giving evidence in favour of accused. The
Court further analyzed the evidence of Dr.Yogita. She is
working as Medical Officer, Regional Mental Hospital.
From December 2015 to June 2016, she is looking after
( 19 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
patient in Criminal Ward. she deposed that the accused is
suffering from Schizophrenia. She stated that the
accused had elementary hallucination and and idea of
persecuation. She also stated that the Psychiatrist
attending the patient used to put his report before the
Visitors' Committee consisting of CJM Pune, Medical
Superintendent, Deputy Medical Superintendent of Regional
Mental Hospital, Pune, Psychiatrist from Jail and private
Psychiatrist were taking decisions of fitness of the
patient. She deposed that she had seen the improvements
in the mental condition of the accused and submitted the
report to Visitors' Committee that accused is fit for
trial. She was cross-examined and she stated that in the
observation sheet maintained by the Hospital, there was
noting that the accused lost interest in the friends, he
had other conflict etc. She stated that these are
characteristics of simple Schizophrenia. She did not
observe senseless activity and did not notice the
accused exhibited disordered thinking and she did not
observe violent behaviour. She also stated that there
( 20 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
was no impairment in his memory and the accused himself
stated the history of illness and on the basis of it,
treatment was given to the him. She also referred to the
endorsement on the observation sheet that accused is fit
for trial.
13) It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court
analyzed the evidence of the witness in the proper
perspectives.
14) The Trial Court further observed that while
remanding the matter back to the said Court, the High
Court has observed that the decision in regard to
unsoundness of mind cannot be merely on the basis of
information received from the Doctor, but it must be
based on evidence and the entire material brought forth
before the Court. The Court therefore considered the
evidence of the Doctors stated above as well as the
material on record filed by Dr.Donglikar, monthly reports
received by the Court and copies of documents filed by
( 21 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
the informant alongwith list Exh.79. Therefore, it
appears that the Trial Court has conducted enquiry and
analyzed the issue involved in the matter by considering
the evidence of witnesses as well as documents on record.
Equal opportunity was given to both the sides. It is
also pertinent to note that the documents relied upon by
the prosecution to support the case that the accused is
of sound mind were considered by the Court. In paragraph
20 of the impugned order it was stated that since
12.5.2015, the accused is in Regional Mental Hospital,
Yerwada, Pune. The Court received the monthly reports
regarding mental status of the accused. The Court also
recorded date-wise report of the accused and impression
recorded by the Doctor therein. It would be pertinent to
embark upon the said impressions, which can be reproduced
herein.
Sr. Reports Impression
No.
01. Report dtd. Patient showing some improvement in
19.6.2015 psychiatric symptoms. He needs
further long term indoor management.
( 22 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
02. Report dtd. Patient showing some improvement in
24.07.15, Exh.37 psychiatric symptoms. He needs
further long term indoor management.
03. Report dtd. At present, patient is missing his
27.8.15, Exh.-40 relatives and feeling lonely. He is
on above said medicines. He will
require long term treatment as well
as family support/environment would
be helpful for his speech recovery.
04. Report dtd. Patient showing improvement needs
16.11.15, Exh.49 long term management. Presently he
is not fit for trial.
05. Report dtd. Patient showing improvement with
16.12.15, Exh.54 current medicines he needs long term
management. He is fit for trial.
06. Report dtd. Patient showing improvement needs
30.10.15, Exh.57 long term management.
07. Report dtd. Patient is showing some improvement
22.1.16, Exh.58 with medication. Patient needs
further long term treatment. He is
VC unfit for trial. Patients
psychological tests are going on at
Sassoon General Hospital, Pune as
advised by V.C.
08. Report dtd. Patient is on treatment. He needs
26.2.16, Exh.60 further long term treatment.
Currently psychometric testing are
going on from Sassoon General
Hospital, Pune.
09. Visitors Patient is of unsound mind. He is
Committee Report unfit for trial and unfit for
dtd. 23.3.16, discharge. He continues to be under
Exh-61 treatment.
( 23 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
10. Report dtd. Unfit for trial.
23.3.15, Exh. 62
11. Report dtd. Patient is on treatment. He needs
14.3.16, Exh-63 further long term treatment.
Patient will be kept before Visitors
Committee for taking opinion for
fitness for trial on 19.3.2016.
12. Report dtd. Patient is on treatment. He needs
16.4.16, Exh-67 further long term treatment.
Patient will be kept before Visitors
Committee on 19.3.2016. He cleared
as VC unfit for discharge.
13. Report dtd. Patient is on treatment. He needs
12.5.16 further long term treatment.
14. Visitors He is of unsound mind. He is unfit
Committee for trial and unfit for discharge.
Report dtd. He continues to be under treatment.
22.6.16, Exh-68
15. Report dtd. Patient showing partial improvement
07.7.16, Exh-75 with current line of treatment. He
needs further long term treatment
16. Report dtd. 1) Patient Fazal Sikandar Patel is
20.8.16, Exh-77 admitted in Regional Mental
Hospital, Pune & receiving above
line of treatment and he is
diagnosed of having Schizophrenia
paranoid type. 2) He is showing
partial/slow response to above
treatment. 3) He needs further long
term treatment.
17. Report dtd. 1) Patient Fazal Sikandar Patel is
01.09.16, Exh. 80 admitted in Regional Mental
Hospital, Pune & receiving above
line of treatment and he is
( 24 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
diagnosed of having Schizophrenia
paranoid type. 2) He is showing
partial/slow response to above
treatment. 3) He needs further long
term treatment.
The Regional Mental Hospital, Pune vide letter dated
19.6.2015 had intimated to Trial Court that the accused
is admitted in Hospital on 12.5.2015. The medical
reports were forwarded to the Court alongwith the case
paper of treatment. Similar communication dated
19.6.2015, 25.7.2015, 27.8.2015 were sent to the Court
with medical report, which refers to Elementary
hallucination and Judgement and insight lacking. The
Visitors' Committee report regarding visits of Committee
on 15.10.2015, 19.12.2015, 19.3.2016, 18.6.2016,
17.9.2016 and 17.12.2016 were sent to the Trial Court.
In all these reports, it is stated that accused is of
unsound mind and unfit for trial. These documents are
annexed to the reply filed by respondent No.2.
15) The impugned order further refers to the report
dated 16.12.2015 Exh.54 wherein the impression is that
( 25 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
the patient is fit for trial. The Court observed that
the Psychiatrist is not authority to take decision to
discharge a person admitted in Psychiatric Hospital for
medical treatment. Though the Doctor found the accused
fit for trial vide Exh.54, the Visitors' Committee report
dated 19.3.2016 and 22.6.2016 opined that the accused is
of unsound mind and unfit for trial and unfit for
discharge and he continues to be under treatment.
Dr.Gosavi has already stated as to who forms the part of
the Visitors' Committee and therefore, the report of the
Visitors' Committee has significance. The Court
therefore while passing impugned order on the basis of
entire material has made observations in paragraph 22
that although the witnesses have stated that they did not
observe the symptoms of ailments in the observation sheet
and the report submitted to the Court, it is clearly
stated that delusion of persecution auditoary
hallucination occasionally, the judgment lacking and
insight lacking. Hallucination or hearing generally
occurs in Schizophrenia, which is one kind of psychiatric
( 26 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
disorders. Report discloses that the accused has
delusion or persecution which affects the conduct and
action of sufferer. Delusion is a sign of psychosis.
These symptoms were seen by experts. Unsoundness of mind
can be decided by only expertise knowledge. Documentary
evidence placed on record discloses that, the accused has
mental illness. The evidence of expert witness and
reports of Visitors' Committee show that the accused is a
person of unsound mind and he is in need of longterm
treatment as indoor patient. The Court thereby considers
the oral evidence of expert and the other material and
therefore came to the conclusion that the accused is of
unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his
defence. The Court therefore passed the order dated
28.9.2016 declaring that the accused is of unsound mind
and incapable of making his defence. Hence, further
proceedings of the case needs to be postponed as per
Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court
also directed that after the accused ceased to be of
unsound mind, Superintendent, Regional Mental Hospital,
( 27 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
Yerwada, Pune, to inform this Court for resumption of
proceedings in this case.
16) Thus it is evident from the observations made by the
Court that the entire material on record was taken into
consideration. It is pertinent to note that the medical
documents placed on record were taken into consideration
by the Court and thereafter arrived at the said
conclusion. I do not find any infirmity in the findings
of the Court. After the matter was remanded back to the
Trial Court, the said Court has applied its mind to the
facts of the case, evidence was recorded, opportunity of
cross-examination is given to the parties. They were
allowed to produce documents, they were heard by the
Court, and thereafter by giving cogent reasons, the
impugned order was passed. There is no reason to
interfere in the said order. The respondents had also
placed on record the medical documents of Government
Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur viz. Copies of
report and discharge card of the accused, which also
( 28 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
indicate that the accused was examined by Doctors while
he was undergoing the preventive detention and report
dated 17.6.2014 indicates that the accused is suffering
from Schizophrenia having mental imbalance, which is of
serious nature. The discharge card states that he was
admitted on 3.4.2014 and discharged on 17.4.2014. The
diagnosis indicates Schizophrenia with past history of
Cannabis Abuse. The discharge card also indicates that
the patient is charge-sheeted before the Court for
offence u/s 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The medical papers relating to treatment, which are
forwarded by the Regional Mental Hospital, are also
placed on record.
17) Apart from the aforesaid report, based on the
evidence on record, no case is made out to interfere with
the order passed by the Trial Court.
18) The petitioner had preferred Criminal Application
No.5249 of 2017 by making certain allegations against the
( 29 ) Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
Police personnel and the Court had directed to look into
the said complaints. The report is submitted to the
Court stating that action is initiated against the
concerned Police Officer for providing the accused food
etc. The enquiry however indicates that while the
accused was at Begampura Police Station, he was not
approached by any of his relatives and no greetings were
exchanged for Id and there was no party and there was no
other celebrations, however, the brother of the accused
had met him in the Court.
19) In the circumstances, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(I) Criminal Writ Petition No.1414 of 2016 is
dismissed and disposed of.
(II) Criminal Application No.5249 of 2017 stands
disposed of.
[PRAKASH D.NAIK, J.]
SPT/Cri.WP 1414 of 2016
