HIGH GQURTQF CHHATT^SARH AT BIUVSPUR Writ Appeal No.2^ of 2010 APPELLANT: Petitioner Smt. Rajrani Lodhl, s^ed aburt 44 ysass. W/o tete Narayan Lodhi, R/o Wltaga Amagohan^ R^ Khonga^ira, Btoek Krta, Distrtd BIIaspur(CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. The State of Chhatt^arh, throtgh Seeretary, Home Departaent, DKS Btewan, Secrrtariat, Raipur (CG) The Secfetary, For Jatl Depa|ft»ient, Secretariat DKS Bhaijan, Ralpur (CG) , ^ Supetfrrtendent of Centtal Jail, Raipur, District Rajpur (CG) Present: Shri Abhay Tiwari, counsel fortheappellant. Shri U.N.8. Deo, Govt. Advocsrteforthe State. Division Bench: Hon'Me Shri DWrendra Mishra & Hon'bte Shtt R.N.Chandraliar. JJ. JUDGMENT (6-9-2010) 1 Narayan Lodhi (since deceased), husbaml oftheappellant, diad on 12- 11-2001 wrtiile he WE®in judiclalci tody inCentral Jail.Ratpur. The appellant fited a writ petitlon seetdng grant of compaasaUon to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent/State on the ground that her hustend died in the jail ftw want of proper fresftnent. He was iwt granted bail in Criminal A eal No-628 of i9S6,as theState (Uledto file reply of his batl applicatlon in tlme. hted fte deccased been released on ball, thenthe appellant and her chjldren could hwe taken care of the deceased. 2 The writ petitlon has been dtsmissed by the impugned order wtlh an observation thrt contention of the api^llant that the dweased could t» granted balt had the State flled Its retum to the bail apj^icaBon ia KI'BBU—B ^.j.iMt: ^ -i^^-i <'Kt£a^' baseless, as when the matter is peRdlt^eonsWeratlon befoFe the Court of law there are several consideratiCTts a»»d It ^inno* be presumedthatthebaUcoutdhavebeengrantedhatlther^umbeen fited intime. It has teCT also observedthatthe d«;easedwras imder treatmentftom 25-7-2000 and he vras dlscharged from the ho^>ihri on 1-8-2000. He was admltted in the hospitaf on severat occasions fbr investigatton and in thejail also propertreatmeRt wasalminidered and n cannot be held that the death of the deceased was uonaturat or it was due to negBgence-on the partofjail authoriWes. It app^rs te be a natural death on account of suffering from the disease ef Llver Cfrrhosls C Ascities. 3 Rellance of the appellant in the decfelon ofAjab Singh and Anrther Vs. State of U.P. and trthers {2000 SCC (Grt)718} te dtetingufshaMe, as in the cited jiKlgment, n was found on postmortem that the cai e of death was shock and haemorrha®e due to antemortem injuries whereas, in the fnstant case, no Injurieswere aistalned by Narayan Lodhi. 4. After hearing leamed counsel for the appellant and after goteg ttirough the tmpugned order, weare ofthe oplntonthat thereis no siAslanGe (n the appeal preferred by the appellant, the same deserves te beand is accordingly dismlssed at the admtsston stsge wtthout nottee to the other skie. ^-= Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge