Dhananjaiah @ Renuka Prasad vs State Of Karnataka

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.178/2019 (S.C.No.359/2019) of Kumbalagudu

Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 353, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/ State.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks granting of bail in favour of the petitioner on medical grounds stating that this petitioner is in

need of immediate medical treatment since he has suffered the fired bullet injuries to his left leg and still he is suffering and not able to walk properly

and the jail authorities have not provided adequate treatment and he is in need of expert medical attention. This Court directed the jail superintendent

to furnish the report with regard to the medical condition of the petitioner. Hence, in terms of the order of this Court, the petitioner was referred to the

Victoria Hospital, wherein, he was subjected to medical evaluation and Orthopaedician also suggested for x-ray and after taking the x-ray, it shows

Union of Distal 1/3rd Ulna, X-ray of Knee suggests No Radiological Abnormality and only advised oral medications. It is opined by the Chief Medical

Officer that treating Orthopaedician at Victoria Hospital opined no active treatment necessary from Ortho point of view and the report is also placed

along with the opinion.

Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that puss is formed in the leg. Hence, he is in need of medical treatment and this

incident of firing was done in the year 2019 and almost three years have been lapsed and the Doctor opinion was also specific that there is no need of

any active treatment. For having taken note of the opinion of the Doctor as well as the report and when the x-rays were taken and suggested that no

active treatment is required and the very contention of the petitioner’s counsel cannot be accepted.

The records reveal that earlier also this Court granted bail for medical treatment. Now, it is nothing but an attempt made by the petitioner once

again for bail on the ground of medical treatment. When this Court referred the matter to the jail superintendent and the jail superintendent subjected

him for medical examination in the Victoria Hospital and the report is against the petitioner’s claim, I do not find any merit in the petition to enlarge

him on bail once again even on medical grounds also.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.