Nagpur: Refusing a 60-year-old sodomy of sodomy accused, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court rejected its guarantee application filed in the field that he was HIV positive and his health condition deteriorated in prison.
Satish Badnakhe, a resident of Dharni in Amravati District, allegedly committed a cruel act with an underage child in an isolated place after promising to give him RS200.
He repeated the action safely on September 27, 2019, in the same place.
In complaints by the boy, Dharni police arrested him and gave him a bar.
Applicants, senior citizens, and a tailor with the profession, submitted the first application for regular guarantees below Section 439 of the criminal procedure code (CRPC) with the Achalpur session court, which was rejected.
He challenged this ruling in HC, who also rejected his request on June 5, 2020.
He then filed a guarantee below Section 14 – A from the scheduled castes and tribes scheduled by ACT, 1989, with the same court in Achalpur.
But it was rejected on October 19, 2020, which he challenged in HC.
Badnakhe argues that he suffered from HIV and his health condition worsened every day.
HC then directed the supervisor of the AMravati Penitentiary to check his physical condition through a prison hospital or near a civil hospital and submit a report.
Dr.
Milind Gavai’s medical officer submitted Affidavit on August 3, told HC that he had examined the applicant carefully and clutched his letters.
He also submits a copy of the report according to the direction of the National AIDS control organization (NACO).
It was told that senior citizens received antiretroviral therapy according to the NACO guidelines.
He said asymptomatik and received a good nutritious diet regularly.
Gavai added that the health condition of the defendant is now stable.
“This court has rejected the Applicant Applicant Applicant Application, and there was no change in a situation, except the suspicion that he suffered from HIV disease.
Given the legal statement of prosecution, it seems that the condition is stable,” the division bench consisting of Judge Vinay Deshpande and Amit Borkar were observed.
While refusing the appeal of the defendant for detailed reasons, the bench clarified that it was considered a benefit.
“In the absence of changes in circumstances, the rejection of the second guarantee application by judge session is legal.
There is no illegality in the order,” said the judges.
What HC said * was considered as Purai because he accused the appeal because there was no change in circumstances, the rejection of his 2nd packaging with perfectly legal * There was no illegality in the Achalpur session of the court order rejecting the guarantee * Remembering by Dr.
Gavai, apparently accused of stable conditions * Receive antiretroviral therapy according to the NACO guidelines