IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10845 of 2009 JITENDRA SWAMI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04/ 07.10.2009 Heard Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.K. Chaman, learned counsel for the informant and Sri D.K. Sinha, learned APP for the State. This is yet another petition to renew the prayer for bail, the earlier petition having been rejected by me by order contained in Annexure-1. I do not want to go into the factual details of the case and the merits of the matter because the prayer has not been claimed on the merits of the case rather some urgent exigencies appearing in the life of the petitioner on account of the petitioner’s claim of his wife being seriously illness is the solitary ground for preferring the present petition. Contention is that Smt. Sunita Singh the wife of the present petitioner suffers with renal problem of a degree as requiring renal transplant. It is contended that the presence of the petitioner by the side of his wife is necessary both for providing psychological support to her as also for arranging - 2 - necessary treatment to his wife. In support of the contention two affidavits were filed in addition to the petition, the first affidavit contained as its annexure. The photo copies of documents indicating that Smt. Sunita Singh was treated by Sir Sundarlal Hospital, B.H.U.,Varanasi for her ailment. The other document is by way of an certificate which contained in Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today pointing out that the wife of the petitioner was checked up as an OPD patient in the above noted hospital for her nephrological ailment. Learned counsel appearing for the informant has also filed counter affidavit disputing that the document Annexure-B to the first affidavit filed by the petitioner was a genuine document. In support of the contention that the document was not reliable. The attention of the court was drawn to Annexure-B/2 which includes certain facts upon which the contention was that the lady was never examined or treated in the hospital. The Court is not interested in going into the dispute of the documents annexed by the petitioner, being forged or - 3 - fabricated. The Court has passed an order dated 27.4.2009 regarding the submissions of the petitioner that he will file supplementary affidavit bringing into the notice of the court the record containing the opinions of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi or Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh. That undertaking does not appear fructifying. The Court does not have before it any material by way of any expert opinion that indeed the renal transplant was required and necessary tests and investigations have been done and it could be essential to transplant the organ at an early date, which could have been done by any of the Institutes handling such surgeries. Unless such materials are brought into the notice of the Court, the Court is not inclined to act upon the submissions by accepting the ground to grant bail for any definite or indefinite period to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)