Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 70 (CHH)

Sanjay Singh Parihar v. State of Chhattisgarh

2002-08-21

FAKHRUDDIN

body2002
ORDER Fakhruddin, J. Heard. 2. Counsel for the State has submitted the report of District Magistrate, Bilaspur and documents of the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur and that of Principal Secretary Jail, Chhattisgarh Government. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The applicant is being prosecuted in Crime No. 121/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 452, 294, 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on 6-6-2001 and the applicant was arrested on 7-6-2001. He had earlier applied for grant of bail on the ground of ailment. The report of Civil Surgeon was called for. The Civil Surgeon on 17-1-2002 informed that the applicant is suffering from heart ailment, hypertension, epilepsy, Hepatitis "B", stone disease, neuropathy, nerve disease and thyroid disease. Orders were passed on 14-12-2001 for examination of the applicant in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur or any other hospital. On 31-1-2002 when the case was taken up for hearing, the State Counsel made a statement that he has received instruction and the accused will be provided due medical facilities at the State expense. While deciding the earlier bail application, the State Counsel submitted that the medical facilities have been given as per the orders passed by this Court on various occasions. It was made clear that so far as medical ground is concerned, the applicant may apply before the Trial Court if so desired and the Trial Court may call a report from the jail authorities and if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by it and suitable orders will be passed in accordance with law. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the applicant had filed an application before the Trial Court. He submits that the application for grant of bail was filed on the ground that the applicant was suffering from serious ailments. It is pointed out that apart from the present applicant, his two brothers namely Dananjay Singh Parihar and Rajesh Singh Parihar were also arrested and charges have not yet been framed against them. 6. Counsel for the applicant submits that as per Regulation 366 of the M.P. Jail Manual, the applicant may be released on bail. The Regulation 366 of the M.P. Jail Manual is relevant and quoted below :-- "366. 6. Counsel for the applicant submits that as per Regulation 366 of the M.P. Jail Manual, the applicant may be released on bail. The Regulation 366 of the M.P. Jail Manual is relevant and quoted below :-- "366. In every case when an undertrial prisoner is seriously ill, the Superintendent shall report the circumstances to the Magistrate or if the prisoner is awaiting trial before the Sessions Court, to the Sessions Judge in order that if the Court thinks fit it proper, the prisoner may be released on bail." 7. Learned Counsel for the parties also referred to Chapter 15 Rule 381 of the Rules and Orders (Criminal). Chapter 15 Rule 381 of Rules and Orders (Criminal) is quoted below :-- "Chapter 15. Bail and Recognizance : 381. The Courts should exercise freely their power to release on bail.- (a) Person seriously ill. (b) Women in an advanced state of pregnancy or soon after child birth, and (c) Minors. If for any reason bail cannot be furnished or granted arrangement for the medical assistance of persons mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) should be made and they should be detained in a hospital or dispensary for prisoners and not be moved to undergo trial in Court until the officer in charge of the hospital or dispensary certifies that they are fit to undergo such trial." 8. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in the bail application, ailments have been described in para 4. In para 5 it has been stated that while in jail custody the applicant was referred to and hospitalized at Bhilai Steel Plant Hospital, Sector 9, Bhilai on 22-9-2001 and got examined and at the time of discharge from the said Hospital on 10-10-2001 Dr. T.K. Pandey had given the report of the discharge summary. Dr. Pandey had given the report that he be reproduced for review in Medical OPD on Tuesdays and Fridays, but the applicant was not sent. T.K. Pandey had given the report of the discharge summary. Dr. Pandey had given the report that he be reproduced for review in Medical OPD on Tuesdays and Fridays, but the applicant was not sent. Counsel for the applicant further pointed out that the document (Annexure R-1) filed by State shows that the Civil Surgeon in his report dated 17-1-2002 has categorically stated that in view of the heart ailment, Coronary Angeography is to be done and for that the applicant is advised to be sent to the hospitals where the facilities are available like Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, Chennai, Bilaspur, New Delhi, Escort Hospital, New Delhi, New Delhi AIMS Hospital, Delhi and Bombay. 9. The applicant has filed an affidavit dated 23-7-2002 stating that when on 9-4-2002 he was sent to Apollo Hospital, then the Hospital authorities raised a demand of Rs. 10,000/- and the Guards who went with him had no money and his younger brother had arranged somehow and deposited the amount and it was only thereafter he was admitted in the late night. It is stated in the affidavit that on 18-4-2002, a letter was written by the Hospital authority to the Central Jail, Raipur raising a demand of Rs. 21,579/- for discharging him and on 29-4-2002 it was informed that Rs. 76,000/- be deposited. It is also stated that he was discharged on 18-5-2002 but he was not allowed to leave hospital, as the amount was not paid. He was allowed to leave the hospital only on 31st May, 2002 when the amount was paid. It is also stated in the affidavit that the amount, which was deposited by him, was not refunded. The applicant was discharged from the Hospital on 18-5-2002 but he was not allowed to leave the hospital till 31-5-2002 due to non-payment of the bills. It is a serious matter and needs examination. 10. Counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Trial Court did not consider all these aspects and also the regulations of Jail Manual and Rules and Order (Criminal). 11. The applicant has filed another affidavit dated 28-7-2002 stating that he was called on 1-7-2002 by the Hospital but as the police force was not available. He was sent on 27-7-2002 in the evening, but till then OPD was closed. 11. The applicant has filed another affidavit dated 28-7-2002 stating that he was called on 1-7-2002 by the Hospital but as the police force was not available. He was sent on 27-7-2002 in the evening, but till then OPD was closed. So far as the treatment regarding difficulties faced, the District Magistrate pursuant to the order passed by this Court made certain enquiry and the State has filed documents from Apollo Hospital. Prima facie on the basis of the two affidavits, it appears that proper arrangements are required to be made by the State authorities as well as the Hospital management/ The matter needs further examination on the basis of the affidavits and the material filed by the applicant. Let a report from the State and Hospital authorities be submitted to the Registry of this Court within 3 months from today. The State Counsel shall forward a copy of this order to the Hospital authorities. 12. Another aspect which has emerged is that proper force was not available and sometimes delay is caused because of non-availability of force. The accused persons are not brought from jail to the Hospital in time for treatment and sometimes delay is caused in shifting them to the Hospital because of non-availability of force. In the Hospital, the prisoner suffering from serious ailments has to be produced as soon as possible. At this stage suffice it to say that the State should have a required force and it is their duty to produce the accused as and when directed and required arrangements have to be made for that purpose. 13. When the case came up for hearing on 19-7-2002, this Court passed an order and issued directions. The relevant portion of order dated 19-7-2002 is quoted below :-- "........ The matter be examined by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur. The explanation from the hospital authorities be also called for and report be submitted to this Court through the office of Advocate General. The State will be obliged to supply all documents to the District Magistrate, Bilaspur and hospital authorities shall produce all documents regarding treatment and bills etc. Affidavit may also be filed by the applicant as well as State if deemed fit and proper. Meanwhile, the State will submit report about the health of the applicant." 14. The State will be obliged to supply all documents to the District Magistrate, Bilaspur and hospital authorities shall produce all documents regarding treatment and bills etc. Affidavit may also be filed by the applicant as well as State if deemed fit and proper. Meanwhile, the State will submit report about the health of the applicant." 14. When the case came up for hearing on 16-8-2002, it was submitted by the Counsel for the applicant on the basis of the para 12 of the affidavit dated 23rd July, 2002 filed by the applicant that the applicant was not sent to the Apollo Hospital after a month as was required. 15. On 19-8-2002, the State has filed reply in which it has been stated that "on through examinations of the materials which are collected by the Investigating Officer, it is respectfully submitted that the applicant is suffering from serious illness. A copy of the report submitted by Civil Surgeon-cum-Hospital Superintendent, Raipur is filed herewith as Annexure R-l". In the said reply, it has also been further stated that "it is also respectfully submitted that the chart which is submitted by the applicant himself issued by Dr. S.K. Goel goes to show that out of 4 diseases which are incurable and the patient is required regular treatment (life long). In view of the above facts, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to consider the bail application." 16. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in this case, the applicant has not received proper treatment. In fact, the ailment is such which according to the opinion of the doctor requires specialized treatment. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the facts and circumstances of the case, as emerged, are such that the applicant may be permitted to get the treatment outside the jail. 17. Learned Counsel for the State submits that he has already submitted reply stating that the State has no objection in view of the Civil Surgeon's report wherein the Doctor has stated that 4 diseases are incurable. The State under the facts and circumstances of the case submitted that bail for a suitable period may be granted to the applicant for further treatment as desired. 18. The State under the facts and circumstances of the case submitted that bail for a suitable period may be granted to the applicant for further treatment as desired. 18. However, having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the ailments of the applicant especially the 4 diseases which arc incurable as certified by the Civil Surgeon vide Annexure R-l and in view of the provisions contained in the Regulation 366 of the M.P. Jail Manual, the applicant is directed to be released on bail for a limited period of four months from the date of release on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the following conditions :-- (i) He shall attend on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court as may be fixed by the Trial Court. If he is not in a position to appear, then his Counsel shall appear and no adjournment shall be sought on the ground of non-appearance. (ii) He shall submit fortnightly periodical treatment report before the Trial Court. (iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not indulge in any other offence during the period on bail. (iv) The bond shall contain his photograph, crime number and details of movable and immovable property. (v) The applicant is further directed to surrender immediately after expiry of the aforesaid four months period. Before accepting the bond, copy of the same shall be supplied to the prosecution. Certified photo-copy as per rules.