Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Ramesh Chandra - Appellant
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement - Respondent
Bail Appln.1913 of 2022, Cr.M.A. 19591 of 2022, 21840 of 2022, 25240 of 2022, 4451 of 2023, 17055 of 2023, 20184 of 2023, 20185 of 2023, 22425 of 2023, 5596 of 2024, 7039 of 2024 and 7040 of 2024.
Decided On : 15-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vishal Gosain, Mr. Anuroop Chakravarti and Mr. Pravir Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal and Mr. Abhipriya Rai, Advocates for E.D.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the seriousness of the petitioner's ailment, the feasibility of treatment in jail, and the need for specialized treatment that cannot be provided in jail, emphasizing the assessment of each case in the light of medical reports and the condition of the accused.

Headnote:
Interim Bail - Medical Grounds - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - PMLA, 2002 - [Section 482 of Cr.P.C., PMLA, 2002] - The court considered the extension of interim bail on medical grounds for a petitioner aged above 85 years. The court referred to various medical reports and opinions from AIIMS and other cases to determine the seriousness of the petitioner's ailment and the feasibility of treatment in jail. The court emphasized the need for specialized treatment that cannot be provided in jail and the incapacitation of the petitioner to perform routine activities. The court directed the petitioner to surrender before the Superintendent Jail on a specified date and extended the interim bail till then, with conditions for medical treatment and evaluation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Director of Unitech Limited, sought extension of interim bail granted on medical grounds due to serious offences involving diversion of funds belonging to home buyers. The court considered the seriousness of the petitioner's ailment and the feasibility of treatment in jail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's ailment, as assessed by medical opinion, was feasible for treatment in the jail hospital, subject to necessary steps for risk of fall due to cognitive decline. The court directed the petitioner to surrender before the Superintendent Jail on a specified date and extended the interim bail till then, with conditions for medical treatment and evaluation.
Issues: Extension of interim bail on medical grounds, seriousness of the petitioner's ailment, feasibility of treatment in jail, and the need for specialized treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the seriousness of the petitioner's ailment, the feasibility of treatment in jail, and the need for specialized treatment that cannot be provided in jail. The court emphasized the incapacitation of the petitioner to perform routine activities and the assessment of each case in the light of medical reports and the condition of the accused.
Final Decision: The petitioner was directed to surrender before the Superintendent Jail on a specified date and the interim bail was extended till then, with conditions for medical treatment and evaluation. The Superintendent Jail was directed to ensure necessary medical treatment and facilities in accordance with jail rules, and to take appropriate steps for ensuring proper medication to the petitioner.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

CRL.M.A.7040/2024

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A.5596/2024 and 7039/2024

1. CRL.M.A.5596/2024 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking extension of interim bail granted vide order dated 28.07.2022 on medical grounds with permission to file on record additional medical documents and facts. Also, CRL.M.A.7039/2024 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C..) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for placing on record additional medical documents and facts.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the application for regular bail, an application for interim bail was preferred on behalf of the petitioner, whereby interim bail granted vide order dated 28.07.2022 on medical grounds has continued till date. Presently CRL.M.A.Nos.5596/2024 and 7039/2024 are pending consideration for extension of interim bail on medical grounds.

3. It is pointed out that after taking detailed note of the ailments suffered by the petitioner including the report from AIIMS, the interim bail was initially granted vide order dated 28.07.2022 and has continued since there has been no improvement in the condition of the petitioner. It is urged that petitioner being aged above 85 years forms a distinct class and even the report of Medical Board constituted by AIIMS, on the orders of this Court, reflects the poor condition of health of the petitioner. Learned Counsel further emphasizes that petitioner requires continuous monitoring and treatment which is not feasible in Jail. It is also pointed out that vide order dated 28.07.2022, while admitting the petitioner to interim bail, conditions were imposed regarding his confinement to home, except for the purpose of attending the Court hearings.

4. Reliance is further placed upon Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1004, Devki Nandan Garg v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2022) SCC OnLine Del 3086, Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SCC OnLine Bom 3150, Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh, SLP (Criminal) No. 32078/2022 decided on 11.10.2022, Pranjil Batra v. Directorate of Enforcement, CRM-M-23705/2022 (O&M) decided on 04.11.2022 by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Bhupinder Singh v. Enforcement Directorate, (2022) SCC OnLine P&H 1564, Dr. P. V. Varavara Rao v. National Investigating Agency & Anr., (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 230, Kewal Krishan Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine Del 1547, P. Sarath Chandra Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine Del 2635 and Lalit Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., CRM-M-7039-2022 (O&M) decided by Hon'ble High Court Punjab and Haryana.

5. On the other hand, application for interim bail is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. Attention of this Court is drawn to order dated 27.09.2023, whereby Medical Board constituted vide order dated 18.09.2023 was directed to give opinion as to whether the condition of the accused/petitioner is of such a nature that it cannot be treated in jail. Referring to the same, it is pointed out that as per report dated 28.11.2023, the Medical Board constituted by AIIMS consisting of Doctors from Deptt. of Geriatric Medicine, Deptt. of Neurology, Deptt. of Cardiology, Deptt. of Psychiatry, Deptt. of Orthopaedics, Deptt. of Urology and Department of Hospital Administration, opined "The Board opines that the present assessment is suggestive of subjective cognitive decline with risk of fall and he can be treated in jail but he should be monitored for fall and its related complications."

6. Based upon the same, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that sickness is not life endangering and treatment of the petitioner is feasible in jail, subject to monitoring for fall. It is further submitt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document