^ G^o0^- S.B. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Writ Petition N0. "76 /2004 PETITIONER ..^'AVP^>' .•••""^n\?-y' ^^^ ^•y^ ..<^ ^T <^> ^ RESPONDENTS :1. Smt. Rajrani Lodhi, aged about 38 years, W/o. Late Narayan Lodhi, R/o. Village Amagohan, Post Khongasara Block Kota, Distt.Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS The State lof Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Honie Departnient, D. K. S. Bhawan Secretariat Raipur (OG.) ^t^hce{^^- \ ' ^U^^^s^'^0^ Ifon'blc ChicfMinistcr ^^^J^r ^.,...s^' ^ •^w '^ ^° State of Chhattisgarh SecretariatD.K.S. Bhawan Raipur(C.G.^ 3. ^»»? pw ^ ^ 4. The Secretary For Jail Departnient Secretariat D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur(C.G.) Superintendent of Central JaH Raipur, Distt.Raipur (C.G.) a ^ WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Y ^^f^ =^>- tex... ^^:^,^, ':A"%te§^^. \^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.76 OF 2004 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Rajrani Lodhi Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State, ORDER(ORAL) (Passedon this 20th day ofJuly, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent/State on the ground that the husband of the petitioner namely; Narayan Lodhi (since deceased) died on 12-11-2001 in jail custody in Central Jail, Raipur, for want of proper treatment and further no reply could be filed by the State in the pending bail application before the High Court in Cr.A.No.628 of 1996 {Narayan v. State of Chhattisgarh). 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the bait could have been granted by the High Court, if the reply was filed by the State in time. Thereafter, the petitioner and her children could have taken care of the deceased. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the dedsion of the Supreme Courtrendered in AjabSingh and Another v.State of U.P. and Others1. 12000SCC(Cri)718 ..^"M. "^. ^^x.. '%'^ 1 fe»& T^^:7i:--%l«t^ '":^^^i^ On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, submits that the petitioner was sentenced to jail on conviction by the 5 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in sessions trial No.332 of 1995 under the provisions of.Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased died in jail custody. With regard to negligence, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the deceased was suffering from the disease of Liver Cirrohsis C Ascities and there was a proper medical care, as is evident from several documents i.e. Annexure—R/1 to R/7. Thus, the allegation of the petitioner that the deceased died due to negligence on the part ofjail authorities and further on account of non-filing of return in the pending bail application before the High Court, is baseless and the petition filed by the wife of the deceased for grant of compensation deserves to be dismissed. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The allegation of the petitioner that since the return was not filed to the bail application in the pending Cr.A.No. 628 .of 1996 the deceased could not be granted bail to provide proper treatment by the petitioner and her children is baseless, as when the matter is pending consideration before the Court of taw there are several considerations and on the basis of mere fiting of the bail application, it cannot be presumed that bail could have been granted, had the return been filed in time. ,.,...-"4 .; y^,l \Q^ ^y^ ?—•• 8. Thus, the prayer for grant of compensation on account of non- filing of return in pending bail application is rejected. So far as the other allegation with regard to negligence on the part of the jail authorities in providing treatment to the deceased is concerned, on perusal of the documents it appears that the deceased was under treatment right from 25-7-2000 (Annexure - R/1). The deceased was admitted to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur. By discharge ticket (Annexure - R/2) the deceased was discharged from the hospital on 1-8-2000. Likewise on several occasions he was admitted to the hospital for investigation and treatment and in the jail also proper treatment was administered. Thus, it cannot be held that the death of Narayan Lodhi was unnatural and it was due to negligence on the part of jail authorities. It appears to be a natural death on account of suffering from the disease of Liver Cirrohsis C Ascities. Reliance of Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Ajab Singh (supra) is distinguishable, as in the case of Ajab Singh (supra) it was found on postmortem that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. This is not the case where death had occurred on account of any injuries sustained by Narayan Lodhi. This is also not the case of the petitioner that on account of beating or assault by the jail authorities, Narayan Lodhi succumbed to the injuries. The postmortem report of Narayan Lodhi shows that the cause of death was "syncope due to cardio respiratory failure due to ^ —^^. ^^:^:\ ' K^^ multiple pathologies". Postmortem report is Annexure - R/7. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajab Singh (supra) is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. Thus, in view of the above, 1 do not find any justification to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 10. No order asto costs. ——— ^owri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^o SM^