The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to two accused in a serious criminal case where the prosecution's case hinges on a medical opinion obtained three years after the alleged incident, raising serious doubts about evidentiary reliability. The judgment underscores the importance of timely and credible medical evidence in non-bailable offences under the IPC, particularly when the complainants themselves were absent for years.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Mahendra Singh and Jeetu Singh, were arrested in connection with FIR No. 221/2023 registered at Police Station Bagra, District Jalore, for offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 325, and 307/34 of the IPC. The alleged incident involved a violent altercation with five individuals, including Shankar Bhai, Smt. Basanti Kaur, Shankar Bhai (son of Jawan Ji), and Prakash, who sustained injuries. The prosecution claims the injuries were life-threatening, warranting charges under Section 307 IPC, later amended to Section 308 IPC.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred in 2023, but the injured persons fled immediately and remained absconding.
- The petitioners filed a cross-FIR, No. 220/2023, on the same day, naming the same injured persons as accused.
- The injured persons were apprehended only in 2026, nearly three years after the incident, from Panaji, Goa.
- An MLC was prepared at the time of incident, but no X-ray or advanced imaging was conducted due to the absence of the injured.
- After their apprehension in 2026, X-rays were conducted and a private medical jurist opined that the injuries sustained in 2023 could have been life-threatening if untreated.
- The petitioners were not arrested during the three-year gap; arrest occurred only after this post-facto medical opinion.
- The charge-sheet against the injured persons was filed under Sections 323, 325, 447, and 504/34 IPC.
Procedural History
- 2023: Alleged incident and filing of cross-FIR No. 220/2023 by petitioners.
- 2023 - 2026: Injured persons remained absconding; no medical follow-up conducted.
- 12/05/2026: Cross-FIR No. 220/2023 uploaded to court records.
- 28.04.2026: Petitioners arrested based on post-facto medical opinion.
- 12.05.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS before the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought bail on grounds of delayed and unreliable medical evidence, prolonged custody without trial, and absence of any flight risk. They requested release on personal bond with sureties.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the BNSS when the prosecution’s case for a non-bailable offence under Section 308 IPC rests solely on a medical opinion obtained three years after the incident, with no contemporaneous diagnostic records and where the injured persons themselves absconded for the entire period.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the medical opinion relied upon by the prosecution was speculative and unreliable, as it was rendered by a private doctor after a three-year gap, without any baseline imaging or clinical follow-up. The absence of the injured persons during the critical period rendered the medical assessment inherently suspect. Counsel cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to emphasize that arrest must not be automatic and that bail should be the rule, especially where evidence is tenuous. The delay in prosecution, coupled with the lack of prosecutorial apprehension regarding flight risk, further supported the grant of bail.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor did not dispute the facts of the cross-FIR, the three-year absence of the injured, or the delayed medical opinion. He opposed bail on the ground that the offences were serious and non-bailable, but offered no rebuttal to the evidentiary concerns raised by the petitioners.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the petitioners under Section 308 IPC is entirely dependent on a retrospective medical opinion, which was not contemporaneous and was obtained from a private practitioner after a lapse of three years. The Court noted that the injured persons had absconded during the entire period, making it impossible to conduct timely medical investigations or obtain reliable clinical records.
"Prima facie, the medical opinion obtained after such a long lapse of time would be a matter of scrutiny during trial, particularly when the injured persons themselves had absconded and did not make themselves available for further medical examination at the relevant time."
The Court emphasized that the delay in prosecution, coupled with the absence of any credible contemporaneous evidence, casts serious doubt on the reliability of the medical opinion. The Court further noted that the prosecution had not demonstrated any apprehension that the petitioners would flee justice if released on bail. The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the case but held that the evidentiary foundation for the non-bailable charge was insufficient to justify continued custody pending trial.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The petitioners, Mahendra Singh and Jeetu Singh, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. They must appear before the court on every hearing date and whenever called upon until trial completion. The order is subject to their not being wanted in any other case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Post-Facto Medical Opinions Require Corroboration
- Practitioners must challenge the admissibility of retrospective medical opinions in cases involving delayed prosecution.
- Absence of contemporaneous imaging or clinical records renders such opinions prima facie unreliable.
- Courts should not treat private medical opinions obtained years after the incident as conclusive evidence of grievous hurt or danger to life.
Delay in Prosecution Undermines Credibility
- Prolonged absence of complainants or witnesses weakens the prosecution’s case.
- Courts may grant bail where the delay in arrest or investigation is unexplained and the evidence is stale.
- Prosecution must demonstrate why charges were not framed earlier if relying on delayed evidence.
Cross-FIRs as a Factor in Bail Decisions
- The existence of cross-FIRs supports the argument of mutual altercation and reduces the likelihood of one-sided aggression.
- Courts may view cross-FIRs as indicative of a complex factual matrix requiring trial, not pre-trial detention.
- Bail applications should highlight cross-FIRs to argue against the prosecution’s narrative of unprovoked violence.
