ORDER :

Proceedings at 12.00 noon

Permission to file special leave petition in Diary No. 12110 of 2021 is granted.

1. These are two connected special leave petitions. Special leave petition arising out of Diary No. 12110/2021 challenges the order dated 15.05.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court; whereas Special leave petition (Crl.) No.3785/2021 has been filed against the order of the Single Judge dated 15.05.2021 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejecting the bail of Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju. Both the matters were taken up today at 10.30 a.m. when the following order was passed:

"The matters were taken up in the presence of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. B. Adinarayan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to serve forthwith a copy of the petitions, by e-mail, to the learned counsel for the respondent/State and also standing counsel for the Central Government requesting the presence of Attorney General for India or the Solicitor General of India at 12:00 noon today.

By the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matters shall be taken up at 12:00 noon today."

2. Besides the counsel for the petitioners and the respondent/State, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appeared for the Union of India.

3. The submission of Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner-Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju is the sitting Member of Parliament and an FIR has been filed against the petitioner-Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju because of political rivalry as though he was elected as an M.P. of a particular political party but he criticized the action of said party and hence FIR has been filed because of political vendetta.

4. At this stage, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the allegations made in the FIR and the submissions in that regard made by learned counsel for the petitioners as at present we are concerned with the medical condition of the petitioner-Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju regarding which there has been remarks by the Magistrate in his order dated 15.05.2021 when he was produced before the Magistrate for remand. The Magistrate has directed to refer the petitioner-Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju for medical examination to the "Superintendent of Government Hospital General Hospital, Guntur and Ramesh Hospital, Guntur to get examine the accused person in the presence of his security of Y category". The Magistrate had also noted the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the police had used 3rd degree methods against him during his custody and he was unable to walk and also that the petitioner-Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju had undergone heart bye-pass surgery in December, 2020. Thereafter, Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 15.05.2021 had directed that the medical examination be conducted by the medical board headed by the Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Guntur with other government doctors as members of the Board. Today medical report has been placed before us which we have perused.

5. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/State has very fairly stated that the State Government would have no objection if Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju is again medically examined by an independent Central Government Hospital in the presence of a Judicial Officer. He suggested that the petitioner-Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju may be examined at AIIMS Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh or in the alternative Manipal Hospital, Andhra Pradesh which is a private hospital.

6. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the AIIMS Mangalagiri is a very new hospital which is not properly staffed and Manipal Hospital is a private hospital. In the alternative he suggested that