P. V. Varavara Rao vs National Investigation Agency, an Agency constituted under the National Investigation Agency, Act, 2008

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Bom) 196

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ.
Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao & Another – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency, an Agency constituted under the National Investigation Agency, Act, 2008 & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2021 (Criminal Appeal LDVC No. 143 of 2020) along with Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 63 of 2021, 64 of 2021 (Criminal Writ Petition (ST.) Nos. 4869 of 2020, 6320 of 2020)
Decided On : 22-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate with Susan Abraham, Paras Nath Singh, Nilima Datta, Nihal Singh Rathod, Anand Grover, Senior Advocate with R. Sathyanarayanan, Neeraj Yadav, Pratik Surti, Aparna Ashitvikar, Borun Kumar, Ujjaini Chatterjee, Advocates, Anil C. Singh, A.S.G. with Sandesh Patil, Aditya Thakkar, Shriram Shirsat, D.P. Singh i/b Vishal Goutam for National Investigation Agency (NIA).
For the Respondents: Deepak Thakare, Public Prosecutor

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Constitutional right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The appellant sought release from custody citing advanced age and precarious health conditions - Key health issues documented include hypertension, urinary tract infection, and cerebral atrophy - Courts recognized the authority to grant bail on health grounds in exceptional circumstances despite serious charges - The conditions of prison facilities deemed inadequate for proper health monitoring - The health condition showed deterioration during imprisonment, necessitating interventions by various hospitals - (Paras 1, 2, 6, 49, 92)

(B) Constitutional jurisdiction - Article 21 - The court emphasized that prisoners retain their fundamental rights, including the right to health, even while incarcerated - Defined criteria for exercising discretion on bail on health grounds despite statutory restrictions in special laws like the UAPA - The need for an individualized assessment was highlighted, considering health conditions, the nature of charges, and ongoing trials - (Paras 44, 52, 72)

Facts of the case:
The appeal seeks bail for the undertrial accused of serious offences under the IPC and UAPA, stating his health has deteriorated significantly. Medical reports indicate multiple ailments, including risk factors exacerbated by age and incarceration in inadequate prison conditions. (Paras 6, 72)

Findings of Court:
Continuous deterioration in the appellant's health within Taloja prison due to lack of proper medical facilities resulted in hospitalization multiple times, justifying bail on health grounds. (Paras 12, 76)

Issues: The court needed to address whether it can grant bail based solely on health issues considering the strict provisions of the UAPA, and the implications of long trials on the fundamental rights of the accused. (Paras 35, 36)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled in favor of the undertrial, asserting that his continued incarceration would put his life at risk due to inadequate medical care in prison, reaffirming the constitutional right to life and health. (Paras 82, 88)

Result: The undertrial is granted bail for six months under specified conditions to monitor his health more effectively outside prison. (Paras 92, 94)

Table of Content
1. request for release based on age and health. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. sequence of criminal events leading to current situation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. deterioration of health while in custody. (Para 19 , 20)
4. arguments presented regarding the health condition. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. court's analysis of the legal questions. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. legal principles surrounding bail on health grounds. (Para 88 , 89)
7. final order regarding the release conditions. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96)

JUDGMENT :

1. An appeal and two writ petitions have come up for consideration before this court for release of Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao, an accused and undertrial (hereinafter referred to as “the undertrial”) from custody, on the ground of his advanced age and precarious health condition.

2. The appeal being Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2021 has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, “the NIA Act”) to challenge order dated 26/06/2020 passed by the Court of Special Judge for Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the NIA Court”) in NIA Special Case No. 414 of 2020, whereby a bail application filed on behalf of the undertrial on the ground of old age and medical conditions, stood dismissed.

3. Criminal Writ Petition No.63 of 2021 has been filed by the wife of the undertrial with prayers for declaration that the respondents have failed to provide appropriate medical treatment to the undertrial in custody, thereby violating his fundamental right to health, dignity and life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from violating International Covenants pertaining to Human Rights and for a direction to the respondents to set the undertrial at liberty on such conditions that this court may deem fit. In the said writ petition, further prayers are also made for shifting the undertrial to Nanavati Hospital at Mumbai and appointing a Medical Board for assessing the medical condition of the undertrial.

4. Criminal Writ Petition No.64 of 2021 was filed by the undertrial himself seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to produce the entire medical reports and to send him for medical check-up and for appropriate treatment.

5. Since arguable questions have been raised in the appeal and in the writ petitions, the appeal is admitted and Rule is granted in the writ petitions, making it returnable forthwith. The appeal as well as the writ petitions were finally heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

FACTS:

6. On 08/01/2018, a First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) bearing C.R. No.4 of 2018 was lodged at Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune City under Sections 153A, 505(1)(b), 117 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, “the IPC”) against six persons for speeches and songs performed at a meeting of Elgaar Parishad conducted on 31/12/2017. On 06/03/2018, Section 120-B of the IPC was added in the said FIR and the investigation was taken over by the A.C.P., Swargate Pune. The said official led a team and carried out raids at Pune and Mumbai on 17/04/2018, against the six accused persons named in the FIR and also against two suspected accused persons, one from Delhi and the other from Nagpur. Pursuant thereto, on 17/05/2018, Sections 13 , 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, “the UAPA ”) were added to the said FIR against the aforesaid six accused persons as also the two suspected persons.

7. On 06/06/2018, the subsequently added two accused persons were arrested, leading to search of their residences and arrest of two more accused persons. On 28/08/2018, the undertrial was arrested from his home at Hyderabad but, following directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, issued in the case of Romila Thapar & Ors. v. Union of India (Judgment dated 28/09/2018 passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.260 of 2018), the undertrial and four other arrested persons were kept under house arrest.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Bom) 196

Cases Referred (12)