D.S.Bhullar vs State through CBI

B. Rai, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (sic) extension of interim bail on medical grounds granted by Special Judge, Patiala vide order, dated 28.4.1998 in case FIR No. RC 5(8)97 dated 10.2.1997 under Sections 302/201/427/468/471/506 read with sections 34 and 120B IPC registered at Police Station SIU/V/CBI/SIC 11, New Delhi.

During the course of investigation of this case, petitioner was not arrested. However, after his petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected by this Court, he himself surrendered in the Court of Sessions Judge, Patiala on 10.5.1997. He was taken into judicial custody. He made an application for regular bail in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 28.11.1997 primarily on medical ground for treatment of heart ailment. The prayer for regular bail was declined. However, the petitioner was granted interim bail from 1.12.1997 to 6.3.1998. On 5.3.1998, he made another application for extension of interim bail. That prayer was allowed and he was permitted to remain on interim bail from 7.3.1998 to 4.4.1998. On 3.4.1998, he filed another application for extension of interim bail. Extension was granted till 30.6.1998 and was directed to surrender in the trial Court on 1.7.1998. It appears that instead of surrendering in the trial Court he has come to this Court with a prayer to suitably extend the interim bail on medical grounds for a period of at least three months in the first instance.

Mr. Saksena appearing on behalf of the CBI strongly opposed the prayer. It was argued that initially the petitioner was medically examined by Dr. Manmohan Singh of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for alleged heart ailment. Dr. Manmohan Singh on conducting ECG found "reversed back". In other words, functioning of heart was found normal. However, the petitioner was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short AIIMS), New Delhi. The petitioner was allowed interim bail from 11.12.1997 to 6.3.1998. The petitioner for the first time visited AIIMS on 18.2.1998. On 18.2.1998, he was again advised to visit on 20.3.1998. That led the petitioner to make prayer for extension of interim bail. Prayer was allowed 7.3.1998 and the interim bail was extended upto 4.4.1998. It was argued that as pointed out earlier, the petitioner was to visit AIIMS on 18.2.1998 and then on 20.3.1998 but he did not visit AIIMS on 18.2.1998 and went to AIIMS only on 23.3.1998 instead of 20.3.1998. When he could not procure favourable medical certificate from AIIMS, the petitioner went to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (for short Escorts) New Delhi. Mr. Saksena submitted that the petitioner during the period of six months while he remained on interim bail was neither hospitalised nor was operated upon. According to the learned counsel for the CBI, the petitioner somehow or the other intends to remain on bail by obtaining interim bail under Court orders one after the other. Not only this, the prosecution is to examine as many as 120 witnesses out of which 12 have already been examined. Two of them have turned hostile. If the petitioner is granted interim bail, there is every likelihood of his meddling with the prosecution witnesses and in that, the case of the prosecution in all probabilities would be prejudiced. Mr. Saksena submitted that petitioner is accused of a very serious offence. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of interim bail should not be granted to him on false and made up plea of ailment.

The learned counsel opposite endeavoured to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the prosecution in order to secure the relief prayed for contending that the petitioner received the treatment as indoor patient from Rajindra Hospital upto 7.1.1998. Again he remained as indoor patient in the said hospital from 29.1.1998. The advice of the concerned Doctor of Rajindra Hospital, petitioner visited AIIMS on 18.2.1998. The concerned Doctor at AIIMS advised him to visit on 20.3.1998. In the evening of 19.3.1998, petitioner reached AIIMS. The Consultant Physician was not found available and as such he was asked to revisit on 23.3.1998. It was pointed out that he was granted interim bail only upto 30.4.1998. On account of emergency, the petitioner went to Escorts on 23.3.1998. On 23.3.1998, the petitioner was examined by Dr. T.S. Kler at Escorts. He found that petitioner was insulin dependent diabetes, HT and ischaemic heart disease. On 27.3.1998, petitioner was examined by Dr. T.S. Kler of Escorts vide EHIRC No. 98/91959. He was found to be insulin dependent dibetes (since 1980), HT and Ischaemic heart disease and was advised to undergo some cardiac investigations including dobutamine thallium.

On 30.3.1998 necessary tests were conducted. It was noticed that result was slightly positive and showed microangiography of small vessel disease. He was advised to undergo coronary angiography as soon as possible subject to control of his diabetes. He was again examined on 1.4.1998 and was advised drug therapy for the time being. The patient was advised to come for repeat follow up for two weeks. It was further observed that if symptoms were not controlled with the drugs then he may need angiography and further revascularisation by CABG and PTCA at that time. The certificates issued by the Escorts do indicate that the petitioner is chronic patient of diabetes since 1980. The authenticity of the certificates have not been challenged on behalf of the CBI.

As regards the contention that out of 12 prosecution witnesses examined so far, two have turned hostile. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of one of the two witnesses relates to extra judicial confession allegedly made by Sandeep Ohri coaccused of the petitioner and the other one is the witness who mechanically examined the vehicle. It is not the case of the prosecution that those two witnesses have turned hostile at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, their hostility cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner while on interim bail ever absented himself from the Court on any date of hearing or that he did not cooperate with the Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, grant of interim bail to the petitioner has not created any hindrance in the progress of the trial. It is also not the case of the prosecution that during the period the petitioner remained on interim bail, he ever attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence or meddle with the witnesses. The case is solely dependent on circumstantial evidence. Large number of witnesses i.e. 108 are yet to be examined and that would take fairly long time. Not only this, presently the petitioner is under treatment. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the seriousness of the disease from which the petitioner is suffering, the interim bail already granted deserves to be extended for at least three months.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties.

It is not disputed that the petitioner after surrender remained in Judicial custody for more than six and half months. In the circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to send him back to jail or keep him in judicial custody till the conclusion of trial.

Though the petitioner is accused of serious offence but the disease complained of is also of serious nature. If the prayer is not allowed and opportunity for treatment is not afforded, ailment complained of may aggravate and result may be disastrous. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case especially the nature of the disease from which the petitioner is suffering and the medical advice in that regard, his prayer is allowed and for the time being, interim bail is extended for three months from the date of order i.e. 21.7.1998 upto 21.10.1998. On the expiry of three months, he shall surrender to the trial Court. This petition stands disposed of.