Allowed

Dr. Satish v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 May 2018BAIL/382/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. Satish, a government doctor charged with offences including dereliction of duty and the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought bail. The High Court considered the charge sheet filed, the applicant's lack of prior record, and his claim that he left to attend a convocation before rushing back. The court found no case for continuation of custody and granted bail with strict conditions to prevent ta

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence and ensuring court attendance.

Dr. Satish Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 59

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 382 of 2018

¶4

Applicant :- Dr. Satish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rishi Chaddha the learned AGA.

¶7

The applicant has been charged in Case Crime No. 428 of 2017 alleging commission of offences under Sections 308, 466, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶8

The allegations in the FIR [and which are also reiterated in the charge sheet submitted against the applicant] essentially are that as Head of the Department of Anesthesia, the applicant had also been assigned the supervisory role in respect of supply of medical oxygen in the BRD Medical College. It is alleged that it was on his watch that the institution faced a disconcerting situation of a shortage of medical oxygen resulting in panic spreading throughout the hospital. According to the FIR allegations since the relevant logbooks were not kept properly, a situation was created where the medical institution faced a serious specter of the supply of medical oxygen running out completely. The allegation further is that although such a situation had arisen, the applicant without any sanctioned left the station and was thus guilty of dereliction of duty.

¶9

Insofar as the allegations referable to Section7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, the case against the applicant is that he being in charge of the supply of medical oxygen entered into a criminal conspiracy with others to ensure that bills of the supplier are not released except on receipt of illegal gratification and it was on account of this fact that the institution faced a critical shortage

¶10

¶11

of medical oxygen.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the material on record, the affidavits filed including the statements of individuals recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the following position emerges.

¶13

The Court firstly notes that the applicant has been in jail since 11 September 2017. He has thus spent 7 months in custody. Shri Chaddha, the learned AGA categorically states that no aspect of the investigation remains outstanding and that a charge sheet has been duly submitted and sanction obtained. The applicant is a qualified medical practitioner with no prior criminal history. There is also no material on record nor has it been asserted by the learned AGA that the applicant has tried to influence any witness or tampered with the evidence.

¶14

Insofar as the issue of the applicant being on leave without permission is concerned, the Court notes the material brought on record on the basis of which it is submitted that the applicant had left to attend the Convocation ceremony of his son who at that time was studying at IIT Mumbai. Shri Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, has also drawn the attention of the Court to the leave application made in this respect to contend that the same was applied for even before the entire episode unfolded. He has also with the aid of other relevant and contemporaneous material, which prima facie merits acceptance, sought to establish that when the applicant came to know of the events unfolding, he immediately rushed back to the hospital. Sri Kumar has also referred to the ticket bookings, the travel undertaken by the applicant and his wife and their journey back to Gorakhpur.

¶15

Before this Court it is also not disputed that the applicant was neither involved in nor was he assigned any work relating to the award of tender/contract for supply of medical oxygen or the release of payments of suppliers. In fact Shri Chaddha, the learned AGA has

¶16

¶17

candidly admitted that the applicant was in no manner connected with the processing, sanctioning or approving of bills in favor of the entity, which was charged with the supply of medical oxygen. In fact a prima facie evaluation of the evidence collected in the course of investigation seems to establish that the applicant has not been ascribed any role in the release of payments to suppliers.

¶18

Although Shri Chaddha has referred to the statements of Shri Dharmendra Chaudhary, Shri Purshuttam Shukla and Shri Ram Saran Gupta, these statements would not justify the continued confinement of the applicant especially when it is prima facie evident that he had no control or involvement in the preparation, sanction or release of bills and payments in respect thereof.

¶19

This Court also bears in mind the principles which must govern the grant of bail at the pre-conviction stage as recognized in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.¹ where the following eloquent observations were made: -

¶20

3. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be consid ered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when - that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evi dence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong - case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody af ter a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also neces- sary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the

¶21

1 (2018) 3 SCC 22

¶22

¶23

deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436-A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶24

4. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re [ Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re , (2017) 10 SCC 658 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 90] .

¶25

5. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India [ Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India , (2018) 11 SCC 1 : (2017) 13 Scale 609] going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [ Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab , (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re [ Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re , 1923 SCC OnLine Cal 318 : - AIR 1924 Cal 476] that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Ref erence was also made to Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson [ Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson , 1931 SCC OnLine All 14 : AIR 1931 All 356] wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.”

¶26

On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶27

Accordingly let the Applicant, Dr. Satish, charged in Case Crime No. 428 of 2017 under sections 308, 466, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station

¶28

¶29

Gulharia District Gorakhpur be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following additional conditions which stand imposed in the interest of justice: -

¶30

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶31

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶32

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶33

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶34

Order Date: - 15.05.2018 (Yashwant Varma, J.) nethra

Dr. Satish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Satish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moin Akhtar Vs Dinesh Rastogi and Anr.

shiv kumar verma Vs prem chandra yadav b.s.a. and another

ram sanware and another Vs jugal kishor, joint managing director

Ram Bhuwan Gautum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Dwar Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Somdutt Vishwakarma Vs Sri Padmakar Singh, Director (Paramedical), Medical and Health Services