SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(SC) 949

UDAY UMESH LALIT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ
DR. P. VARAVARA RAO – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY & ANR. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1206 OF 2022 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1207 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anand Grover, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Mr. Susan Abraham, Mr. R. Satyanarayan, Ms. Nilima Dutta, Mr. Aditya Chitle, Mr. Rohin Bhatt
For the Respondents: Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Sairica Raju, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma

Permanent bail on medical grounds overrides statutory bail restrictions when severe health conditions justify such relief.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Grant of bail - Medical ground for bail was the crux of the appeal, with evidenced health deterioration at a significant age impacting the decision. The court analyzed the medical condition in detail, considering various health issues that led to bail being granted on a temporary basis, ultimately elevating it to permanent bail due to health grounds. (Paras 4-18)

(B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - The court balanced statutory bail restrictions with constitutional rights, emphasizing the need for harmonization of statutory and constitutional considerations regarding personal liberty, particularly when medical conditions are severe. (Paras 15-17)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, aged 82, faced severe health issues due to prolonged custody conditions and deteriorating health over time, with documented medical conditions leading to conditions for bail.

Findings of Court:
Given the age and medical conditions, the appellant is entitled to relief by deleting conditions on bail time limits, thus granting permanent bail; medical attention is still regulated.

Issues: The main questions addressed included whether the bail should remain time-limited due to health issues and the interpretation of statutory restrictions versus constitutional rights regarding bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the gravity of health concerns, necessitating a permanent bail arrangement while reminding that any misconduct during bail release would lead to cancellation of such relief.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. leave granted indicating procedural progression. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the appellant's health conditions warranting bail. (Para 3)
3. statutory restrictions and constitutional rights on bail harmonized. (Para 15)
4. court decision for permanent bail based on medical grounds. (Para 17 , 18)

ORDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1206 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5913 of 2022)

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Interim Application No.2018 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2021 preferred by the present appellant.

3. The appellant, presently 82 years of age, was kept in house arrest on 28.08.2018, whereafter regular custody was obtained by ACP Swargate, Pune on 17.11.2018 in connection with the instant crime. The police thus had the benefit of custodial interrogation though we are not strictly concerned with that facet of the matter as the instant case revolves around the issue of grant of bail on medical condition of the appellant.

4. By order dated 22.02.2021, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay while considering Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2021 and Criminal Writ Petition Nos.63 and 64 of 2021 noticed certain salient features including the medical condition of the appellant in paragraph 72 of its order. Said paragraph 72, for facility, is quoted hereunder:

“72. We have perused the entire record in detail and we find that certain undisputed facts can be deduced, which are as follows:

“(a) The undertrial is aged 82 years and he suffers from pre-existing health ailments i.e. piles, prostate enlargement, coronary artery disease, Oedema/Ansarca (swelling of feet), Hypertension, Sinusitis, Migraine and Vertigo.

(b) The undertrial suffered from deterioration of his health at the Taloja Central Prison in May 2020 itself. He was admitted to the J.J. Hospital but the papers pertaining to the said period of his admission to the J.J. Hospital were not brought on record by the respondents.

(c) The medical papers pertaining to the stay of the undertrial in the J.J. Hospital in July 2020 show that he had to be admitted due to deterioration of health, electrolyte imbalance as a result which he was showing signs of delirium. He was bleeding from rectum and he had Urinary Tract Infection causing urinary inconvenience and loss of control of urination.

(d) The undertrial suffered a fall from bed due to which he suffered a cut on his forehead, which had to be stitched/sutured. He had difficulty in walking and he was disoriented.

(e) The undertrial was found to be Covid-19 positive due to which he was shifted to the St. George’s Hospital, which was a recognized Government facility for Covid-19 patients. In the St. George’s Hospital, it was recorded that the undertrial was suffering from delirium and perhaps dementia, requiring treatment for electrolyte imbalance and other ailments noted above.

(f) The health of the undertrial deteriorated further, complicated by having contracted the Covid-19 virus and, at this stage due to the intervention of NHRC, the undertrial was shifted to Nanavati Hospital.

(g) During his stay in the Nanavati Hospital between 19/07/2020 and 27/08/2020, the medical reports consistently showed that he was talking in an irrelevant manner and that he was showing signs of delirium and he was suffering from tremors. In view of his Urinary Tract Infection and complications, the catheter had to be used.

(h) Upon being abruptly discharged from the Nanavati Hospital, the said Hospital gave specific instructions as regards the close monitoring of his health conditions even after discharge.

(i) Upon discharge, the undertrial was lodged in Taloja Central Prison Hospital where the close monitoring expected in terms of the instructions given by the Nanavati Hospital could not be undertaken.

(j) The respondents have not been able to place any contra material on record as regards specific statements made on behalf of the undertrial in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top