2011 (10) TMI 763 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of regular bail by the Special Judge.
2. Petitioner's critical health condition.
3. Applicability of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. Allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. Evidence and investigation findings.
6. Previous judicial precedents on bail due to medical conditions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Regular Bail by the Special Judge:
The petitioner sought bail after the Special Judge declined it on 28.09.2011. The Special Judge's decision was influenced by a report dated 26.09.2011, which indicated that the petitioner's health was stable but required monitoring. The petitioner argued that the Special Judge overlooked critical medical details indicating his deteriorating health.

2. Petitioner's Critical Health Condition:
The petitioner's health condition was extensively detailed, including a history of renal transplant, diabetes, hypertension, and other ailments. A comprehensive medical report from AIIMS highlighted multiple severe health issues, including acute allograft dysfunction, urinary tract infection, and the necessity for a highly sanitized environment. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that only the doctors in Singapore, who performed the kidney transplant, could adequately manage his health.

3. Applicability of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The petitioner's counsel invoked Section 437, which allows bail for sick or infirm individuals. The relevant portion of the section was cited to argue that the petitioner's severe health issues warranted bail. The court considered these provisions in light of the petitioner's critical condition.

4. Allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860:
The petitioner faced charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the IPC, with a maximum punishment of five years if convicted. The allegations involved a financial transaction linked to a political scandal during a confidence vote in Parliament. The petitioner's counsel argued that the supplementary charge-sheet lacked substantial evidence and was a reiteration of the initial charge-sheet.

5. Evidence and Investigation Findings:
The investigation revealed no direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged bribery. Despite exhaustive efforts, including scrutiny of bank accounts and Parliamentary Committee findings, no conclusive evidence was found. The Parliamentary Committee's report also did not find any substantial proof against the petitioner.

6. Previous Judicial Precedents on Bail Due to Medical Conditions:
The petitioner's counsel cited the Supreme Court judgments in "State of U.P. vs. Atique Ahmad" and "State of Maharashtra vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal" to support the bail plea on medical grounds. These cases highlighted the court's consideration of severe health conditions for granting bail, even when the accused faced serious charges.

Conclusion:
Considering the petitioner's critical health condition, the court granted bail on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1 Crore with two sureties, later reduced to Rs. 50 Lakhs, and adhere to specific conditions, including not leaving the country without permission and not tampering with evidence. The court emphasized the need for a clean and hygienic environment for the petitioner's health, which could not be provided in jail. The bail application was allowed, reflecting the court's prioritization of the petitioner's health over the ongoing legal proceedings.