Sarswati Devi vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

W. Diengdoh, J

Heard Ms. P. Chettri, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the notice issued upon the respondent No. 3 may be deemed to have been served since a confirmation of the service of the same has been issued by the concerned post office, following which the petitioner has filed the affidavit of service wherein a copy of the track consignment issued by the post office has indicated that the delivery of the said notice was confirmed on 29.09.2022 at 14:12:35.

In spite of the receipt of the said notice the respondent No. 3 has failed to appear before this Court and as such, it is submitted that this matter may proceed exparte against the respondent No. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that vide previous order of this Court dated 30.09.2022 the Medical Superintendent, NEIGRIHMS has been directed to ensure the best treatment to be given to the patient concerned who is the accused person herein and to file a detailed report of the health status of the said patient on the next date fixed, which is today, however records would show that no such report has been filed.

Again, the learned counsel has submitted that the condition of the accused, son of the petitioner is deteriorating inasmuch as even his sense of hearing has been affected and it is the wishes of the family members that he may be allowed to be shifted to some other medical facilities for which prayer for grant of bail may be allowed.

The learned Addl. PP, Mr. H. Kharmih has admitted that the medical report on the condition of the accused/patient, currently undergoing treatment at NEIGRIHMS has not been filed today and has submitted that the State respondent may be allowed to ensure that the said report is filed within the next date fixed.

Having heard the submission of the learned counsels for the parties, on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the appearance of the respondent No. 3 in these proceedings, the fact that the notice is deemed to have been received is evident from the said report of the post office. Accordingly, the service of notice upon the respondent No. 3 is deemed to have been duly affected. The fact that the respondent No. 3 has also failed to appear before this Court today only goes to show that he is not interested to contest this matter. This being the case, the matter shall proceed exparte against the respondent No. 3.

This Court has also taken a strong exception at the conduct of the Medical Superintendent, NEIGRIHMS who has failed to comply with the order of the Court, apart from the fact that the medical report as called for has not been filed, there is also no representation to explain as to why the said report could not be filed today. Be that as it may, this Court will proceed with the matter based on the submission of the petitioner as regard the health condition of the accused, son of the petitioner.

As noted in the earlier order passed by this Court, the then medical condition of the accused/patient as is evident from the medical report dated 21.09.2022 filed by the Medical Superintendent, NEIGRIHMS the patient is suffering from MDD with hemiparesis (non organic).

According to the National Library of Medicine, National Centre for Biotechnology Information, it describes major depressive disorder (MDD) as a heterogeneous disease that affects one out of five individuals in their lifetime and is the leading cause of disability worldwide. The symptoms of MDD are associated with structural and neurochemical deficits in the corticolimbic brain regions. The behavioral symptoms of depression are extensive, covering emotional, motivational, cognitive, and physiological domains, and include anhedonia, aberrant reward-associated perception, and memory alterations. Hemiparesis, on the other hand is indicative by weakness of one entire side of the body.

Considering the fact that the accused/patient is indeed suffering from the ailments aforementioned, this Court is not in a position to gauge the extent or severity of the same in the absence of the latest medical status of the patient. The wishes of the family members to provide, according to them the best medical care at any medical facility of their choice cannot be disallowed at this stage. It is also well settled that in cases of non-bailable offences, bail can be allowed on ground of sickness or ailment. Solely on this ground alone, the prayer for grant of bail can be considered.

In view of the observations made above, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail to the accused/patient is hereby allowed.

The accused/patient is directed to be released on bail on the following conditions, provided he is not wanted in any other case:

i. That he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence and witnesses;

ii. That he shall appear before the court as and when required;

iii. That he may leave the jurisdiction of the court for medical treatment, however prior permission is to be obtained from the court concerned after furnishing all relevant details, e.g., place of treatment, estimated period of treatment, etc., and also that he should report to the court on his return from treatment;

iv. That apart from what has been stated at Serial No. iii above, he is not to leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the court; and

v. That he shall furnished a personal bond of ₹ 30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) only with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

With the above, this petition is disposed of.