Delhi High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 4391 read with Section 4822 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for grant of bail on medical grounds, Sudhir Kumar Jain, J., stated that there could not be any compromise with the applicant’s life merely because he did not require immediate hospitalisation. The applicant definitely required regular and periodical medical attention. Mere fact that at present hospitalisation of the applicant was not required and could be treated on outpatient basis did not disentitle the applicant from grant of medical bail, particularly when the applicant was suffering from various serious ailments requiring constant, regular and periodical medical treatment. Thus, the applicant was entitled for grant of medical bail as per proviso to Section 437(1) of the CrPC.
Background
On 20-06-2022, the CBI-respondent registered a case for commission of offences punishable under section 120-B3 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Sections 4094, 4205, 477-A6 of the IPC and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (‘DHFL’), Kapil Wadhawan, Dheeraj Wadhawan-the applicant and others for entering into criminal conspiracy to cheat consortium of seventeen banks led to sanction huge loans aggregating to Rs. 57,242.05 crores and siphoning off and misappropriating significant portion of the said funds by falsifying the DHFL’s books of account.
The applicant was the promoter of DHFL along with the accused Kapil Wadhawan were arrested on 19-07-2022 and the respondent after completion of the investigation field the report under Section 173 of the CrPC against 18 individuals including the applicant and fifty-seven companies/entities.
The applicant claimed to be suffering from multiple comorbidities and chronic ailments including ischemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, fluctuating serum creatinine levels, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity etc. The applicant had visited hospitals about 50 times during custody since 26-04-2020 and had undergone about eight surgeries during this period. The applicant was granted bail on medical ground by the Bombay High Court, but was denied the medical bail vide order dated 24-05-2024 (‘impugned order’), passed by the court of Special Judge CBI-08, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi (‘Trial Court’).
The issue which needed consideration in the present case was whether the applicant being a sick or infirm person was entitled for grant of bail as per the proviso to Section 437(1) of the CrPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the applicant was examined by the Medical Boards on two occasions as per the directions given by the Supreme Court and Trial Court. The Medical Board constituted after the directions given by the Supreme Court observed that the applicant required regular, periodic follow up with the respective specialists on an outpatient basis for ongoing conditions and could be treated in jail and there was no indication of hospitalisation.
The Court noted that the Medical Board also observed that vitals of the applicant were within normal limits and clinical examination was unremarkable, but he had mildly elevated pancreatic enzymes, creatinine and mildly reduced serum potassium levels and he was being treated for hypertension, chronic kidney disease, obstructive sleep apnea, depression and hypokalemia. The Medical Board opined that at present there was no medical issues which might require continued hospitalization.
The Court stated that it might be true that the applicant might not require hospitalisation but certainly the applicant was suffering from various serious ailments related to vital organs including kidney, lungs, heart etc. and required constant, regular and periodic follow up and examination with heavy medication under direct supervision of expert and specialist doctors. The Court stated that the medical facilities required by the applicant might or might not be available in hospitals attached with Tihar Jail and other government hospitals.
The Court stated that the applicant being a citizen was enjoying fundamental right to be treated for his ailments by suitable doctors and the applicant could not be denied appropriate and required medical treatment and attention, due to the reason that at present the applicant did not require hospitalisation. The Trial Court was not justified in observing that the applicant could be treated and provided medical treatment in a government hospital.
The Court stated that there could not be any compromise with the applicant’s life merely because he did not require immediate hospitalisation. The applicant definitely required regular and periodical medical attention. Mere fact that at present hospitalisation of the applicant was not required and could be treated on outpatient basis did not disentitle the applicant from grant of medical bail, particularly when the applicant was suffering from various serious ailments requiring constant, regular and periodical medical treatment. Thus, the applicant was entitled for grant of medical bail as per proviso to Section 437(1) of the CrPC.
The Court stated that it was conscious of the fact that there were very serious allegations against the applicant and other co-accused involving misappropriation and cheating of about Rs. 40,000 crores and the applicant were involved in number of cases. However, the Court was dealing with consideration of bail to the to the applicant on medical ground and not on merits of the case.
The Court stated that the applicant was in judicial custody for more than fifteen months and was suffering from various ailments. The Trial was not expected to be concluded within reasonable time or near future as there were more than 100 accused named in the charge sheet and the prosecution had cited more than 600 witnesses. Therefore, bail on medical ground be considered and granted, considering the various ailments suffered by the applicant.
Thus, the Court granted bail to the petitioner on the condition that the applicant should furnish personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Further, if not already seized during investigation, the applicant should surrender his passport to the Trial Court and should not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The applicant should intimate his present address to the Trial Court within one week from date of release and should intimate trial court about any change in residential address within three days.
Further, the Court stated that the applicant should not indulge in any criminal activity and should not tamper with evidence and try to influence or threaten any witnesses. The applicant should attend the trial regularly unless his personal attendance was exempted by the Trial Court and might appear through video conferencing with the permission of the Trial Court.
[Dheeraj Wadhawan v. CBI, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6263, decided on 09-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Avishkar Singhvi, Ashish Verma, Vijay Kari Singh, Debopriyo Moulik, Rohan Dakshini, Prakhar Parekh, Janaki Garde, Vishwajit Singh, Tejas Popat, Raghav Dharmadhikari, Garvil Singh, Sanskriti Shakuntala Gupta and Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Anupam Sharma, SPP, CBI with Prakarsh Airan, Harpreet Kalsi, Abhishek Batra, Ripudaman Sharma, Vashisht Rao, Syamantak Modgill, Advocates.
1. Section 483 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’)
3. Section 61 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
