Karnataka High Court
Mr. K. Ramakrishna vs The Union Of India on 24 August, 2023
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5974/2023
BETWEEN:
1. MR. K. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE SRI KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
PRESIDENT
SRI GURU RAGHAVENDRA
SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA, AND
SRI GURU SARVABHAUMA SOUHARDA
CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD., AND
DIRECTOR,
M/S. MUKHYAPRANA AGRO FRAMING
AND RESEARCH INFO PVT. LTD.,
M/S. GRAVITY LEGAL COMPANY
NO.64, 3RD FLOOR, 41ST CROSS,
3RD MAIN, JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 070. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAVI KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
BENGALURU ZONE OFFICE,
3RD FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK, BMTC,
SHANTHINAGAR, TTMC KH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI A.R.L.SUNDARESHAN, ASG FOR
SRI M.UNNIKRISHNAN, CGSC)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON INTERIM BAIL FOR A
PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS ON MEDICAL GROUNDS ENABLING HIM
TO TAKE BETTER TREATMENT IN ANY OF THE PRIVATE
HOSPITALS IN BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.780/2022
(ECIR/BGZO/9/2020) PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS COURT AT BENGALURU U/S 3 R/W 4 OF PML
ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.08.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and counsel for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution that is Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal office, Bengaluru that one Sri.A.Santhosh Kumar, CEO of Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamith, Bengaluru lodged a complaint before the Banasawadi Police Station, Bengaluru for the commission of misappropriation of the funds and fraud and upon filing of the complaint, the Banaswadi police have registered a case in Cr.No.69/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 3 406,420,409,120B R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act. This petitioner was arrested by the Bengaluru police on 14.02.2022 and on the completion of the investigation, they have filed a charge sheet in Criminal Case No. 28892/2021, now pending on the file of Hon'ble I ACMM Court at Bengaluru.
3. In the meantime, the respondent Directorate of Enforcement has registered a case in ECIR/BGZO/9/2020 against the petitioner and others for the alleged offences punishable under Section 3 R/w 4 of PML Act, 2022. Based on the said complaint, the Trial Court took the cognizance of the said offences and registered the case and after the investigation filed the final complaint before the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.780/2022.
4. It is contended that the allegations made in the prosecution papers are that petitioner being the head of the Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamith and along with other accused conspired together and created bogus/fake deposits by debiting loans and advances of FDs and loans 4 against FDs were sanctioned without having FDs. The loan documents were not found in respect of 80876 loans amount into Rs.1,544.43 crores and same was found without any securities and it is further alleged that they have sanctioned the loans to various beneficiaries without RBI directions issued on 01.07.2015. Further it is alleged that the petitioner and other accused were responsible for the loans of Rs.1,556 crores and bank did not have any KYC documents for 8039 customers accounts etc.,
5. It is also contended that in the petition that the petitioner had moved the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C before the Trial Court and same was dismissed on 07.03.2022 and thereafter he had approached this Court and filed Crl.Misc.No.12561/2022 and said petition also came to be dismissed by this Court on merit on 24.06.2022, challenging the same, SLP No.8032/2022 filed before the Apex Court and same was dismissed on 16.09.2022. Thereafter the petitioner has approached the Trial Court on 21.01.2023 and sought for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C on medical grounds and same was rejected by the Court on 06.06.2023.
5
6. The petitioner in the present petition has contended that he is suffering from various ailments more particularly heart ailment, even today he is under medication, since he is in judicial custody, he could not get proper medical attention in jail hospital, he requires immediate medical treatment at reputed private hospital for heart ailment. The medical documents are also produced as Annexure-A to G and has not filed any other petition for seeking the same relief.
7. The counsel would vehemently contend in his argument that petitioner is aged about 72 years and suffering from various illness for the past several years more particularly heart ailment, previously he has suffered multiple heart attacks and admitted in Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular, Bengaluru on 01.11.2016. On 18.09.2019 he got admitted to the Apollo hospital for heart ailments. In the year 2019 doctor Girish.B.Navasundi attached to legends heart centre had opined that LVEF of the petitioner is 35% (normal rate is 55%). On 15.02.2020, it was opined that LV function decreased to 40% to 30% of petitioner as such implantation of CRT-D (pace maker) is necessary. Further on 01.06.2020, the legends heart centre gave 6 same opinion and the reports of the said hospital shows that LV (Left Ventricle) moderate LV systolic dysfunction. On 08.07.2021 the petitioner underwent Echocardiogram test at legends heart centre, Bengaluru. The report indicates that moderate LV systolic and grade-I LV diastolic dysfunction.
8. The counsel would vehemently contend that the petitioner is a cardiac patient needs immediate medical attention by the well known cardiologist and further multiple medical opinions indicates that the petitioner requires early implantation CRT-D and it is a life saving measure to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death, as such the petitioner requires immediate treatment at well known private hospital having better facilities. The health condition of the petitioner indicates that he is a sick person and entitled for bail under Section 45(1) of the PML Act also; without touching the merit of the case, the petitioner seeking bail on medical and humanitarian grounds for a period of 6 months, enabling him to take better treatment at any of the private hospitals in Bengaluru. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed and hence he may be enlarged on bail.
7
9. This bail petition is resisted by filing detailed statements of objections filed by the respondent, re-iterating allegations made in the final complaint filed against the petitioner, regarding medical ground is concerned, contend that he would not get proper medical attention in jail hospital is not true and correct. The records discloses on examining the documents produced by the petitioner, they are all pertaining to the year 2019 and 2020, some prescriptions are subsequently and those shows that they were ailments which existed even before the petitioner was arrested. In fact, Courts while rejecting the applications for bail have considered the issue in the medical angle of the petitioner and after filing the petition that the petitioner was involved in a major fraud, the Court has dismissed the bail petition. The jail authorities can provide a better treatment what he has sought. Even referred the patient to the specialized hospital like Jayadeva hospital etc., and the said hospital is a reputed one, the petitioner health is well taken care of. The level of sickness does not involve danger of life and bail cannot be granted bail on medical ground. The records produced by the petitioner only shows that he is undergoing some 8 treatment of heart ailment. The document which are produced are also of the year 2016, 2019 to 2022 and he can be adequately treated in the Jayadeva Hospital and hence not made out any ground.
10. The counsel in support of his argument he also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in SLP.No.8032/2022, wherein the Apex Court dismissed the same that High Court has rightly refuse to release the petitioner on bail. The counsel also relied upon the order passed by the Trial Court which is recently dismissed on 6th day of April-2022 and also brought to notice of earlier order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2561/2022 and this Court elaborately discussed the gravity of the offence and referred the judgment of Ramendu Chatopadyaya case which is aptly applicable to the case on hand and dismissed the same.
11. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court National Investigation Agency V/s Zahooor Ahmad Shah Watali reported in (2019) 5 SCC 1 wherein in the judgment an observation is made when the accused sought the bail on the medical ground, taken note of the fact that 9 medical care as and when demanded, the same can be provided in the Government Hospital and also from AIIMS and special Court had also directed jail Superintendent to provide proper medical care as requested.
12. The counsel also relied upon the judgment report in State of UP V/s Gayatri Prasad Prajapati in Crl.A.No.686/2020 and apex Court in this judgment also set aside the impugned order of the High Court and held that there was no satisfaction recorded by the High Court that the treatment offered to the respondent is not adequate and he requires further treatment by any particular medical institute for which it is necessary to release the respondent and interim bail on medical grounds and High Court without considering the entire materials on record has passed the impugned order which is unsustainable.
13. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in State through Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi V/s Jaspal Singh Gill in SLP No.1543/1984 and brought to notice of this Court at paragraph No.9 and 10 and also 11 wherein an observation is made that High Court should 10 not have enlarged the respondent on bail in larger interests of the State. It is urged that respondent is a person who has undergone a cardiac operation and needs constant medical attention and further observed that the prison authorities would arrange for proper treatment of the respondent whenever the need for it arises.
14. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in case of Pawan V/s Ram Prakash Pandey and others RP No. 1561/2001 and brought to notice of this Court in paragraph No.9 and 10 where the Court has discussed that allegations of ailment of the applicant are not specifically denied, the respondent No.2 can always apply jail authorities to see that he gets the required treatment.
15. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in case of State V/s Sardool Singh and others and brought to notice of this Court at paragraph No.4, 9 and 10 wherein also an observation is made that the larger interest of the public, the report of the medical board has to be taken note of. I cannot allow the said respondent to remain on bail and cancel the bail of the respondent and direct him to surrender to his bail bond. 11
16. The counsel also relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4321/2014 dated 05.08.2014 wherein also the Court comes to the conclusion that the involvement of the accused clearly discloses prima facie material.
17. In reply to the arguments, the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner has not sought regular bail. The bail is sought for the limited period of 6 months. Even a purposive interpretation of the proviso Section 45(1) PML Act, 2002 shows that it has been incorporated as a lenient provision and to afford relaxation to the sick or infirm person as noted in the statement of objections and reasons to PML Act, thus a legislature has carved out an exception empowers the special Court to grant bail on humanitarian grounds to a person who is under the age of 16 years or is a women or is a sick or is a infirm. The petitioner is suffering from Ischemic heart disease, severe left ventricle systolic dysfunction. He is also suffering from Acute Coronary Syndrome, Systemic Hypertension, Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and he requires CRT-D cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantation of an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (AICDs) and he 12 use to take almost 15 tablets and he is suffering from serious ailments which have a chance of escalation and Doctors may also advised to undergo surgery in case if he does not respond to a medicines prescribed to him. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
18. The counsel in support of his argument he relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No.8836/2023 wherein discretion has been exercised, the petitioner be released on interim bail on medical ground for 2 months with conditions.
19. The counsel also relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No.5590/2023 wherein also an interim order is granted to provide a treatment in the facility chosen by the respondent.
20. The counsel also relied upon the judgment Sameer Mahandru V/s Directorate of Enforcement Crl.M.A.No.10859/2023 passed by the Delhi High Court and brought to notice of this Court granting of bail for a period of 6 weeks and also paragraph No.50 held that health condition of a human being deserves utmost importance and right to health is 13 one of the most significant dimensions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every person has a right to get himself adequately and effectively treated. The exercise of distinction of grant of bail is not to be exercised only as a last resort rather freedom is a cherished fundamental right.
21. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court Sanjay Jain Vs Enforcement Directorate bail application No.3807/2022 wherein also discussed with regard to protection of rights and personal liberty in paragraph No.21 held that the said right cannot be curtailed "except according to procedure established by law". However, right to health is also recognized as an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Merely because a person is an under Trial or for that matter even a convict, lodged in jail, this facet of right to life cannot be curtailed. It remains an obligation of the state to provide adequate and effective medical treatment to every person lodged in jail, whether under trial or convict.
22. The counsel also relied upon the judgment Kewal Krishna Kumar V/s Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC Online Del 1574 and brought to notice of this Court at 14 paragraph No.18 wherein an observation is made with regard to proviso to Section 45(1) shows that it has been incorporated as a lenient provision or to afford 'relaxation' to a sick or infirm person as noted in the statement of objects and reasons to PMLA.
23. The counsel also relied upon the judgment Vijay Aggarwal through Parokar V/s Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 SCC online Del 4494 and brought to notice of this Court at paragraph No.15 wherein Article 21 of the constitution not only gives a fundamental right to live but the right to live with dignity. The counsel by referring these judgments would vehemently contend that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail for a period of 6 months in order to take the treatment.
24. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent i.e., ASG for respondent counsel for Sri.M.Unnikrishnan, CGSC for respondent, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: 15
1) Whether the petitioner has made out any ground to enlarge him on bail for a period of 6 months for medical treatment?
2) What order?
25. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel for respondent and also considering the gravity of accusation made against the petitioner, this Court earlier in Crl.No.2561/2022 vide order dated 24.06.2022 dismissed the petition on merit in coming to the conclusion that the judgment of Apex Court in Ramendu Chattopadhyay's case is aptly applicable to the case on hand. The order was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.8032/2022, the Apex Court also held that the High Court has rightly refused to release the petitioner on bail and we are completely agree with the same.
26. It is also not in dispute that subsequently the petitioner has also approached the Trial Court by filing an application in Spl.C.No.780/2022 and same was rejected on 06.04.2023 and thereafter he has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
16
27. The main contention urged in the petition is that he is suffering from Ischemic heart disease and other ailments and also brought to notice of this Court Article 21 of the Constitution of India that his right to health cannot be curtailed and also brought to notice of this Court a purposive interpretation of the proviso Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 shows that it has been incorporated as a lenient provision or to afford relaxation to a sick and infirm person as noted in the statement of objections. In keeping the said contention, this Court also to consider the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by the counsel ASG for the respondent and National Investigation Agency judgment referred supra, held that the Court has to evaluate the nature of illness of the petitioner and also in the other judgments also the Apex Court cancelled the bail in coming to the conclusion that the High Court has not applied its mind in considering the gravity of the offence and gravity of the ailment. No doubt the judgments referred by the petitioner's counsel i.e., the Apex Court in the two judgments referred supra granted interim bail on medical ground and the judgments of Delhi High Court referred by the petitioner's counsel, this Court has to 17 consider the same. The documents which have been produced before the Court by the petitioner has rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that these documents of Jayadeva Hospital dated 05.11.2016 and also the medical records of the year 2019 and also the assessment with regard to the decreased LV function from 40% to 35%, the patient is having worsening chronic heart failure despite revascularization and optimal medical management. Therefore, he requires early implantation of CRT-D and the said was the report of the year 2020 i.e., 15.02.2020 and the fact that this petitioner was arrested in 2022 and the said advice was made in 2020 itself.
28. It is also important to note that earlier also the petitioner took treatment on 22.12.2020 prior to his arrest with Girish.B.Navasundi and echocardiogram report also dated 22.12.2020. The other echocardiogram report dated 08.07.2021 and same is also prior to his arrest and report is moderate LV systolic dysfunction.
29. It is also important to note that this Court also directed the jail authority to get the report and the counsel for respondent vide memo dated 27.07.2023 submitted the medical 18 records of the accused for kind perusal of this Court and those documents reveals with regard to the earlier medical records of the year 2016 and 2019. Thereafter, after his arrest he was taken to Prince Hospital and also taken to Jayadeva Hospital on 30.09.2022 and found that mildly reduced LV function EF 50%, trivial mitral regurgitations, no obvious slot. He was advised to continue medications. No doubt he is aged about 73 years, earlier admitted to Prince Hospital and he was on regular medication for Ischemic heart disease. He is advised implantation of CRT-D as a life saving measure by the senior consultant and interventional cardiologist, Apollo hospital to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death and to improve the cardiac function and this advise was made in 2020 itself and rightly pointed out by the counsel for respondent that he would take such treatment in the Jayadeva Hospital and the same is known hospital for heart ailment and there is no recent medical examination report and the recent medical report is 30.09.2022. The records also reveal that when he was arrested on 18.02.2022, he made all efforts to get the bail and approached the Trial Court, this Court as well as the Apex Court. 19
30. Having consider the gravity of the offence and nature of accusation that this petitioner being a Chairman of the said bank indulged in committing the breach of trust and PMLA offences i.e., fraud to the tune of 1,544 crores of rupees and the same is money invested by the general public and taken note of the gravity of the offence and comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out any ground to enlarge him on bail. Now, come up with ailment of heart disease and same was also urged before this Court and also before the Trial Court and same was observed by the Trial Court while rejecting the application. This Court has also in detail taken note of the gravity of the offence. No doubt he is aged about 73 years and same cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail and the said treatment can be provided even in Jayadeva Hospital and jail authorities also can taken him to Jayadeva hospital in the month of September-2022 and this Court also earlier considered the grounds of medical ailment in paragraph No.8 of the order that he is aged about 71 years and suffering from heart ailment and undergone surgery. The said ground has been urged earlier also.
20
31. This Court while rejecting the application taking into note of the said ground rejected the same and no any further treatment records except taking him to hospital in the month of September-2022 to Jayadeva Hospital wherein also advised medication and he can continue medication, if he really desires the treatment in any other private hospital as contended by the petitioner, he can be taken to private hospital by the jail authorities and treatment can be provided to him at the cost of the petitioner. No ground is made out to enlarge him on bail for a period of 6 months as contended by the petitioner's counsel and I have perused the medical records, no doubt he is having heart ailment from 2016 and no doubt the principles laid down in the judgments also clear that the Court can take note of the health of the petitioner whether he is an under Trial prisoner or convict and same also to be taken care of. The jail authority can take care of the said ailment of the petitioner by taking him to Jayadeva hospital and if the petitioner desires, he can be taken to private hospital at his choice and jail authority is directed to take him to hospital for his treatment as contended by the petitioner and no ground is made out to release him on bail for a 21 period 6 months as contended by the petitioner and Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition is rejected. The jail authorities are directed to take him to Jayadeva Hospital for appropriate treatment. If the petitioner desires to take treatment in private hospital, the jail authority is directed to take him to private hospital and the petitioner can take the treatment in the private hospital at his cost under the supervision of the jail authority.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHS