YADAV, J. - (1.) THE question relating to "jail or bail' during the pendency of trial, involved in the present two bail applications, with regard to custodial death alleged against accused -applicants, who are members of police force deserve serious consideration of this Court. THE aforesaid question is to be answered with unstirred judicial mindset. Keeping in view the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence collected by Investigating Officer in support of such accusation, the severity of the punishment which conviction may entail, the difficult task, which uniformed police force to perform in adverse circumstances to maintain law and order and safeguards provided to them while discharging their professional duties, without being influenced with print media, leading to large scale public agitation.
(2.) THE present two bail applications under Section 439, Cr. P. C. , arise out of FIR No. 4 (s) 2000/sic. IV/nd registered for offence under Section 302, IPC, but after investigation, charge - sheet has been filed in Court by Investigating Officer for offences punishable under Sections 304, 323, 325, 218 and 201, read with Section 34, IPC regarding which, Bail Application No. 634/2000 of accused applicant Har Sahay Meena, has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, vide his order dt. 29. 9. 2000, whereas, the first bail application of accused applicant Shanti Chand, was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer, on 3. 10. 2000, and his second bail application was also rejected on 12. 12. 2000. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, I propose to dispose of these two bail applications after weighing the pros and cons to the effect that our country and other civilised countries of the world have realised the necessity, to protect the human rights, in view of changing social realities and emerging trends in the nature of crime and violence by evolving and pressing into service the doctrine of zero tolerance. Both these bail applications arise out of the same FIR, hence, it can be disposed of by a composite order. For better and deeper understanding of the question, involved in these two bail applications, it is necessary to have a short resume of the facts, leading to unfortunate incident, which trangically occurred on the intervening night of 19th and 20. 06. 2000, in which, Dharmendra Meghvanshi, a student of MA Final Year, of Government College, Ajmer, lost his life. It is revealed from perusal of case -diary that Dharmendra Meghvanshi was the President of Government College, Ajmer. It is alleged that on 19. 6. 2000, on his scooter, Dharmendra Meghvanshi, along with Pappu Rolia and Ashok Chaudhary, had left for Ramganj. He was accompanied by his two other friends. They stopped before a liquor shop at Ramganj, and Dharmendra Meghvanshi purchased a bottled of liquor. He consumed liquor, along with his two friends, namely, Narendra and Pappu, at the crossing of Government College, Ajmer. All of them then left for Karwa Hotel, where, again, the three persons named above, consumed liquor. It is further revealed from perusal of case -diary that on 20. 6. 2000, at about 12. 30 a. m. , Dharmendra Meghvanshi, after consuming liquor with his friends at two places, named hereinabove, were going on his scooter RJ -01 2m 9867, which was driven by his friend, Ashok Chaudhary. They reached near Clock Tower, Station Road, Ajmer, for purchasing cigarettes from a tea -vendor, Manu Sindhi, who was selling tea/cigarettes on a 'thela', where they met Sugreev Singh Meena, Constable and Pankaj Verma, Home Guard, in their uniform, who were detailed on night patrolling duty in their beat, to maintain law and order. When Dharmendra Meghvanshi, under influence of liquor, and his friend, Ashok Chaudhary saw the police constable and the Home Guard in their uniform, Dharmendra Meghvanshi started staring at their uniform, right from top to bottom. When an objection was raised by Sugreev Singh Meena, Constable, there was a serious altercation between them and Constable gave beating to Dharmendra Meghvanshi with his 'danda' which he was carrying on his night patrolling duty. The information relating to the altercation and 'marpeet' between Dharmendra Meghvanshi and his friend, Ashok Chaudhary on one side, and Sugreev Singh Meena, constable and Pankaj Verma, Home Guard, on the other, reached Police Station, Clock Tower, Ajmer. Thereupon, it is alleged that some other police constables, reached to the place of occurrence in a jeep No. RJ -01 C 7811. Dharmendra Meghvanshi and Ashok Chaudhary resisted their arrest resulting again in 'marpeet' with them. It is revealed from perusal of the case -diary that the Medical Board, which conducted the post -mortem at Ajmer, categorically stated that the brain was absolutely healthy. After conducting the post -mortem, the said Medical Board could not arrive at any conclusive finding regarding the cause of death and so, they chose to keep it reser - ve till the receipt of Chemical Hystopathological Examination of viscera. After the rece - ipt of the said reports, nothing conclusive qua cause of death could be ascertained.
(3.) IT is further revealed from the perusal of the case -diary that the Investigating Officer could not come to terms with the conclusions, drawn by the Medical Board of Ajmer, since the Medical Board on one hand opined that the deceased died due to Cerebral Concussion and the brain was found healthy. The Investigating Officer, finding himself to be in a fiasco, sought opinion of Medico -Legal Expert Committee, comprising of six eminent doctors of All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The said Medical Board, after thorough examination of all the documents as also after viewing the videography of post -mortem, conducted at Ajmer, came to the conclusion that the deceased died as a result of Myocardial infraction (heart -attack), due to Coronary Atherosclerosis and ante -mortem thrombosis of left anterior descending branch of left coronary artery. The onset of Myocardial Infarction was at least four hours prior to death. The injuries mentioned in post -mortem report are not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, individually or collectively. According to the report of Medical Jurist of AIIMS, injuries mentioned in the post -mortem report of Dharmendra Meghvanshi and Medico -Legal Report of Ashok Chaudhary, could be produced by blunt force, including road traffic accident. The questionnaire put by the CBI, to the Medical Board of AIIMS and the answers given by the Board, are as under: - "q. 1 Whether the medical reports and 2 Video Cassettes of the post -mortem indicate the nature of injury as shown in the post -mortem report were caused due to fall from Scooter? Q. 2 The injury report of Ashok Chaudhary dated 20. 6. 2000 may be examined and opined whether the injuries were due to scooter accident or not? Answer 1 & 2 -The injuries mentioned in the post -mortem report of Dharmendra Meghwanshi and as seen in the video cassettes are consistent. The injuries mentioned in the post - mortem report of Dharmendra Meghwanshi and Medico Legal Report of Ashok Chaudhary could be produced by blunt force including road traffic accident. Q. 3. . . . . . . . . Ans. . . . . . . . . Q. 4. . . . . . . . Ans. . . . . . . . . Q. 5 Whether the two video cassettes show any other injury both external and internal on the person of Dharmendra Meghwanshi other than those shown in the post -mortem report. If so, the causes thereof. Ans. The injuries mentioned in the post -mortem Report are consistent with that of two video cassettes. Answers given by Medical Board to the questions, asked in letter dated 30. 8. 2000 by Investigating Officer are also reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. Q. 1 Kindly express your opinion regarding the role of stress, excitement and sustaining injuries in causation of death even if it is the cause other than the injuries. Ans. If someone is suffering from Myocardial Infarction (heart attack) and undergoes stress, excitement or sustains injuries due to violence, it may deteriorate his condition. Q. 2. As per report of Chemical Analysis No. FSL/toxi/division/819/2000 shows presence of Ethy1 Alcohol in concentration 115 Mg. per 100 Ml. so the role of Alcohol in this case may be explained. Ans. If the person is under the influence of alcohol and is in stage of euphoria which may occur at the level of 115 Mg. per 100 Ml. , such a person may ignore the symptoms of Myocardial Infarction. " Looking into the serious allegation and two versions putforth before me, one by learned counsel for accused -applicants and other by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of C. B. I. , I thought it proper to direct the learned counsel for the parties, to submit before this Court whether the accused applicants have been charged by the learned trial court, under Section 304 -I, IPC or under Section 304 -II, IPC, with a direction to the Investigating Officer, to remain present in Court, on the next date of hearing, to apprise the Court, within how much time, it would be possible for him, to examine all the 75 witnesses, cited in challan -papers. ;