TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aightaway have imposed appropriate punishment under the Act. However, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to these contemnors. The Respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered an apology. At the same time for Dr. K.S. Sachdev, Managing Director of the company that owns the hospital is said to be 76 years of age. Considering the fact that these are medical professionals with sufficient standing, the ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to them to present their view on the issue of punishment. In the circumstances, we direct presence of these three contemnors on January 2, 2017. Role of the police officials - HELD THAT:- The conduct exhibited by the concerned police officials in not ensuring compliance of the Orders passed by the Trial Court calls for strict administrative action. The actions in that behalf have already been initiated and for the present we rest content by observing that the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken to logical end and the guilty shall be brought to book. We request the Director General of Police of Haryana and the Home Secretary to look into the matter and ensure that the departmental proceedings a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against Naresh and Rishi, a prima facie case Under Section 25 of Arms Act against Dinesh @ Kala and Sunil and a prima facie case Under Section 27 of Arms Act. 6. Keeping all these factors in perspective, especially the wide-scale injuries suffered by several persons, there is a strong prima facie case of the involvement of the Respondent No. 1 in the alleged crimes. Moreover, the antecedents of Respondent No. 1 are such that a reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with witnesses or leveling of threats is imminent and omnipresent. The severity of the attack should not be overlooked. For these manifold reasons, we set aside the impugned Order dated 11.2.2013, allow the Appeal and cancel the bail granted to Respondent No. 1 who shall surrender to custody forthwith. 3. Thus, while setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court took into account the role played by the Respondent in firing upon the deceased and the fact that he was an influential person in the area with criminal antecedents. In keeping with direction to surrender to custody forthwith, it was expected of the Respondent to do the needful. However, the record ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.03.2014 Present: Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the State. Accused Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining accused on bail except accused Balbir alias Bali. Warrant of arrest of accused Balbir alias Bali received back unexecuted. Now fresh non-bailable-warrant against accused Balbir alias Bali be issued through SP Rohtak for 16.4.2014. Notice to his surety and identifier be issued through SHO concerned for the date fixed. 16.04.2014 Present: Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri O.P. Chugh, counsel for accused Rohtas and Balbir @ Bali. Accused Ajay in custody while all the remaining accused on bail except accused Balbir @ Bali......................... An application has been moved on behalf of accused Balbir @ Bali in which it is stated that accused Balbir @ Bali has filed Curative Petition No. 12576/2014 in the Hon'ble Apex Court and hence, intimation is being submitted before the Court. Since warrant of arrest have already been issued against accused Balbir @ Bali, hence, the filing of the application on behalf of accused is of no consequence. The non-bailable warrant which was issued against Balbir @ Bali received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as it may from the service report dated 14.01.2015 submitted to this Court it appears that Respondent No. 1 is admitted to the hospital for the past 15 months. No medical certificate to that effect is however available on record. In the circumstance we deem it fit to direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak Range to verify whether the statement made by Amit Kumar son of the Respondent regarding admission of Respondent No. 1 in the hospital is factually correct and to file a report before this Court regarding his medical condition if he is indeed admitted to the hospital anywhere in the State of Haryana. 5. Accordingly Mr. Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak submitted an affidavit on 16.02.2015, stating that son of the Respondent in his statement recorded on 8.02.2015 had stated that his father was admitted in Privat Hospital, Gurgaon and that said son also produced Medical Certificate dated 7.02.2015 to that effect. After verifying the fact, instructions were issued to keep close watch and take the Respondent in custody upon his discharge. The Medical Certificate dated 07.02.2015 was annexed to the affidavit and the Certificate reads as under: PR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he can be discharged but kept on delaying the decision for being discharged. He was not making payments for his medical bills. He had kept on assuring the hospital that he will clear all the medical bills but kept on paying small amounts and promising balance of payment soon. 6. It is submitted that on 13.02.2015, the police officials at PS Kalanaur, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana had informed the Hospital that the hospital may inform the SHO, Kalanaur Police Station, Rohtak, whenever the Hospital discharges this patient......... 7. Subsequently, the Police official from Kalanaur Police Station, Rohtak vide his communication dated 15.03.2015 inter alia, requesting the Hospital to opine whether this patient can be produced in the Court of Ld. ADJ, Rohtak. 8. In response to his communication dated 15.03.2015 of the Rohtak Police, the Hospital had clearly informed them on 16.3.2015 that the patient Mr. Balbir Singh is fit to be produced in the Court. The further details of his treatment in the Hospital with a Certificate were also issued on 26.03.2015. ........ The police officials from Rohtak by his communication dated 1.5.15 had requested the Hospital to issue a discharge sli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ev Pvt. Ltd., Phase-II, M.G. Road, Gurgaon to arrest accused Balbir @ Bali who was declared Proclaimed Offender in case FIR No. 141 dated 06.05.2011 Under Sections 148/149/323/325/307/302/109/114 Indian Penal Code 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana but the doctors of the said hospital again refused to discharge accused Balbir @ Bali under the pretext that his treatment was going on and intimation shall be given within two days after completing his treatment. The S.H.O., Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak before going and after returning recorded the DDR No. 12 dated 25.03.2015 at 8.20 AM and DDR No. 42 at 10.20 PM mentioning all these details therein at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana. 10. That notwithstanding the issuance of medical certificate dated 26.3.2015 by Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon, Haryana, the concerned hospital authorities intentionally did not discharge the accused Balbir @ Bali from the hospital for reasons known to them. It is further mentioned that the doctors of the said hospital orally advised the police not to arrest the accused as it may put his life in jeopardy/or danger. 11. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitoring. The accused Balbir @ Bali remained admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak from 01.05.2015 to 12.05.2015. That on 12.05.2015, accused Balbir @ Bali was discharged from PGIMS, Rohtak and is since in District Jail, Rohtak, Haryana. 9. The matter was thereafter taken up on 08.07.2015 when this Court, with a view to find out whether the Hospital had become party to attempts of the Respondent to prevent the law from taking its course, passed following Order: .........From the versions presented to us about the circumstances in which Respondent-Balbir continued to evade arrest by the police on account of his prolonged admission to the hospital, we are prima facie of the view that an appropriate enquiry is called for in order to bring the truth to light especially with a view to finding out whether the hospital had become a privy to the attempt of the Respondent to somehow prevent the law from taking its course. The fact that the Respondent remained admitted to the hospital concerned for a long period without so much as paying the amount claimed by the hospital shows that the admission of the Respondent to the hospital may not have been an innocent act. We do not for the present wish t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Dr. Munish Prabhakar, the Consultant Physician of the said Hospital. (f) There was no change in the condition of accused Balbir Singh from 12.06.2014 to 1.12.2014 necessitating him to be kept as indoor patient as is evident from the table given at Para 3(ii)(c) at Page No. 5 of this Enquiry Report, still he was kept in the said Hospital for no reason. (g) No laboratory tests were conducted during the period from 25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from 12.04.2014 to 01.5.2015 which indicate that neither illness of accused Balbir Singh was serious nor treatment given to him was intensive. (h) There was no cogent ground for which accused Balbir Singh was allowed to move out of the said Hospital for 47 times during the admission in the said Hospital. Rather it establishes that he was fit to move freely and was not required to be kept as indoor patient. (i) There was no justification for the continued admission of accused Balbir Singh in the said Hospital from 11.04.2014 to 1.05.2015 i.e. for 386 days. (j) Accused Balbir Singh remained admitted in the said Hospital without any payment for the first 274 days during his third admission as he was admitted in the said Hospi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the execution report mentioned about any enquiry from family members of the accused or his whereabouts. It was also revealed that some of the entries made in the General Diaries of PS Kalanaur in connection with the efforts for arresting the accused Balbir Singh do not correspond with the respective log books of vehicles. 12. After considering the Enquiry Report, this Court was prima facie of the opinion, that notice was required to be issued to Dr. K.S. Sachdev, why he should not be punished for committing contempt of court. The Order dated 19.11.2015 passed by this Court dealt with the matter as under: ..................We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and are of the view that a notice of show cause ought to issue even to Dr. K.S. Sachdev who happens to be the Managing Director of Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. A notice shall accordingly issue asking Dr. K.S. Sachdev to show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of this Court in as much as from the material placed on record, it appears that Balbir Singh accused in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2011 was harboured by the Hospital run by the Company of which he is the Managin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, that the hospital on 16.03.2015 furnished a fitness report to Rohtak Police declaring the Respondent to be fit to be produced in court of law. The affidavit further stated that for reasons best known to them the police did not take the Respondent from the hospital despite such fitness report and the Respondent was finally discharged after letter dated 01.05.2015 seeking his discharge was received from the police. The affidavit stated that no police official came to the hospital seeking custody of the Respondent and that the hospital had not refused to comply with the request of the police at any stage. It further stated: The prolonged admission happened as the accused trapped the Hospital by not paying. There was no criminality on part of hospital as it was totally unaware of his criminal status before 13.02.2015. The hospital did not keep him as he was paying ₹ 9,500/- to the hospital, it was non-payment of this amount that gave him prolonged stay and he very cleverly used this position that for the fear of losing money, the hospital will not discharge him and he trapped the hospital very cleverly being a wily politician. 15. We heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e orders and processes issued by the Court. Despite issuance of notice, the Respondent has neither filed any response nor tendered any apology. Having gone through the record and considered the Enquiry Report, we have no doubt that the Respondent is guilty of having committed contempt of the direction issued by this Court in its Order dated 24.10.2013 and also in obstructing the administration of justice. 19. We now turn to the role of the hospital and medical professionals. The explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev was that they were not aware of any direction by this Court to the Respondent to surrender to custody or that the Respondent was required in connection with any crime. At the outset, it must be stated that the Respondent stood admitted in the hospital for 527 days. Not a single laboratory test was conducted during the period from 15.02.2014 to 01.05.2015. The papers produced on record do not in any way suggest any medical emergency which could justify continued admission of the Respondent as an indoor patient. Further, during the third admission of the Respondent from 12.04.2014 the first payment to the hospital was made only on 10.01.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent lest it may put his life in jeopardy or danger. The Enquiry Report rightly observed ......the said hospital on more than one occasion informed Rohtak Police in writing that accused Balbir Singh was fit to be taken to court but did not discharge him. It was only after this Court passed the Order dated 24.04.2015 directing personal presence of Dr. Munish Prabhakar with a direction to file an affidavit and explain the situation, that the hospital discharged the Respondent on 01.05.2015 which then resulted in arrest and production of the Respondent. 21. The explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. Sachdev that the Respondent trapped the hospital and by non-payment of the bills kept prolonging his stay in the hospital does not inspire confidence at all. If the hospital was really a victim of the machinations of the Respondent, at the first opportunity i.e. when requisition was made by the police on 13.02.2015, the hospital would have responded immediately. The requisition dated 13.02.2015 had informed the hospital that Respondent was a proclaimed offender and that his custody was required. This requisition was close on the heels of the medical certificate d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; Willful disobedience to a direction issued by this Court on 24.10.2013 on part of the Respondent is quite evident. He was party to the proceedings and bound by the order and as such his liability on that court stands established. Further, by his defiance of the direction so issued, he also obstructed administration of justice. He is thus liable for committing civil contempt as well as criminal contempt. But the Medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev were not parties to the matter where the direction in question was passed. 24. As regards the liability of the aforesaid Medical Professionals, questions that arise are: 1) whether a person, who is not bound by a direction issued by the Court could be held guilty for committing contempt of court for his conduct in either directly aiding and abetting violation on part of the person who is bound by such direction; and 2) what is the extent of liability of such person. A.] In Seaward v. Paterson (1895-99) All ER 1127 the landlord of the concerned premises had obtained an injunction against Paterson i.e. his tenant restr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not yet been served. While considering the question whether any disposal of assets belonging to the Defendant by the bank would make it liable for committing contempt of Court, it was stated as under: I think that the following propositions may be stated as to the consequences which ensue when there are acts or omissions which are contrary to the terms of injunction. (1) The person against whom the Order is made will be liable for contempt of Court if he acts in breach of the Order after having notice of it. (2) A third party will also be liable if he knowingly assists in the breach, that is to say if knowing the terms of the injunction he willfully assists the person to whom it was directed to disobey it. This will be so whether or not the person enjoined has had notice of the injunction... I will give my reasons for the second proposition and take first the question of prior notice to the Defendant. It was argued that the liability of the third person arose because he was treated as aiding and abetting the Defendant (i.e. was an accessory) and as the Defendant could himself not be in breach unless he had notice it followed that there was no offence to which the third party c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he administration of justice by the court in the confidentiality actions. D] In a separate concurring opinion Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle stated as under: I turn to consider whether there is any reason why established principle should not be applied to the situation in this case. I do not accept the proposition that to apply established principles in the foregoing circumstances would effectively be to convert every injunction from an order in personam to an order contra mundum. That proposition ignores the distinction between the breach of an order by the person named therein and interference with the course of justice resulting from a frustration of the order by the third party. 25. In our view, the Medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to the Respondent without there being any reason or medical condition justifying prolonged admission of the Respondent as an indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed by this Court and the Trial Court, as stated above and thereby aided and assisted the Respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct these Medical Professionals have obstructed administr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
