Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 May, 2025
1
APHC010277302025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
I.A.No.01 of 2025
In/and
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5717/2025
Between:
Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. S DUSHYANTH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
I.A.No.1 of 2025
ORDER:
The application is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short „BNSS‟) seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crl.P.No.5717 of 2025 in C.C.No.253 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, arising out of Crime No.208 of 2019 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 171(E), 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the 2 Hanuman Junction Police Station, Krishna District.While thepetition is pending, I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner seeking to release the petitioner on interim bail on medical grounds and also to enable to undergo appropriate medical treatment and post-treatment monitoring under the supervision of his personal and family doctors and to report the course of treatment to this Court periodically or at the very least direct the Jail Authorities concerned to immediately transfer the petitioner to a hospital as advised by his personal doctors for necessary medical care, treatment and medication to the petitioner who is arrayed as Accused No.10 in the case.
2. Mr. S. Sriram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits by filing a memo along with the documents that the petitioner has been in the Judicial custody for the past more than 110 days and he was implicated in more than 10 cases, one after the other, by way of filing PT warrants; and his weight is reduced by 20 Kgs drastically and his gait has also been affected. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court has granted a pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in the similar circumstances. It is further submitted that the petitioner has complained tothe hospital authorities whenever he was produced at the behest of the learned Judicial Magistrate or the learned Special Judge that he has been suffering from severe breathlessness, violent vomiting, and critically low oxygen saturation (SpO2) accompanied by low blood pressure. It is submitted that the Jail Authorities has supplied all medical reports of the petitioner on 28.05.2025. Therefore, the petitioner prays the leave of this Court to file the 3 medical certificates for perusal of the same. A bunch of medical reports are filed. The observation of the doctors concerned on 15.05.2025 is the petitionerwas advised to undergo EEG, MRI Brain and Epilepsy Protocol based on the complaints given by the petitioner about his health condition to the doctors.
3. Similarly, on 20.05.2025 also, as seen from the report of the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, the petitioner was advised to continue CPAP Ventilation; inhales usage and he was suggested to use some tablets; and he was advised to review with the sleep study report.Dr.K.Sirisha, Assistant Professor, GGH, Vijayawada, opined on 20.05.2025 that the petitioner shall be studied a sleep test which is not available at GGH, Vijayawada and the petitioner could be referred to centre of their choice with an available sleep lab. Another Doctor/Civil Assistant Surgeon, on 20.05.2025 opined that, for taking opinion from Pulmonologist, the petitioner was advised to undergo sleep study and he was also advised for referring to Neurologist for certain diagnosis; E.E.G and M.R.I with Epilepsy Protocol. While relying on the above medical records, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urges this Court to refer the petitioner to any Corporate Hospital where necessary medical treatment would be provided for securing the good health of the petitioner.
4. Sri Posani Venkateswarulu, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-State has also produced medical records pertaining to the petitioner and draws to the attention of this Court about the health condition of 4 the petitioner. A perusal of the medical records, the Professor, Department of Neurology, Guntur Medical College, Guntur suggested for neurological reference for sleep study and it was also mentioned as under:
"Referred for sleep study.
Polysomnograph has not been working for the past 1 year to perform polysomnography (sleep study)."
5. Vide an Endorsement, dated 26.05.2025, the Assistant Professor, Department of Pulmonology, GGH, Guntur also advised the petitioner for referring to Pulmonological and neurological evaluation. Vide observations, dated 26.05.2025 by the Assistant Professor of General Medicine, it was mentioned that the petitioner has complained SOB on exertion Gr - III aggravated during nights; sleeplessness; pedal edema; chest pain. It was also referred that the petitioner was on hyper tension, allergy and he was affected with Covid on earlier occasions and he was using intermittent CPAP ventilation during nights.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-State suggested that the petitioner may be initially referred to any Government Hospital and after assessment by the Government Hospital, he may be referred to any Corporate Hospital for a better treatment.
7. However, as referred supra, even as per the medical records produced by the respondent-State, the observations and opinions of the doctors in the cadre of Assistant Professor, Professor of various departments of the Government hospitals suggested that the petitioner is required to 5 undergo certain treatments which are not available in any of the Government Hospitals in Guntur or Vijayawada.
8. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the order, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter relating to Kinjarapu Atchannaidu V. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.P.No.2420 of 2020, dated 08.07.2020, while considering whether the circumstances of the case of shifting the petitioner therein to any Super Speciality Hospital either in Vijayawada or Guntur was warranted, observed in Paras 27, 29, 35 & 36 as under:
"27. This act of the investigating officer strikes the conscience of any human being and by any stretch of imagination it cannot be believed that the investigating officer is not aware of the petitioner's plight. The officer failed to understand that the society has moved from the time when the crime was equated with sin and the accused is a sinner and he does not have any other rights. The officer should understand that the accused / prisoner who has committed a grave offence is not stripped off his constitutional protection. The respondents shall discharge their duties in a fair and equitable manner and should not give a go by to the basic human values and rights which are essential for a nation bound by the rule of law.
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court has evolved the human rights jurisprudence for the preservation, protection of human rights time and again. It was reiterated that the protection of the accused should be in the interest of civilized system of law. The criminal justice system tries to strike a balance between eliciting the truth and the fairness of the process. The learned Special Judge while dealing with an application filed under Section 54 of Cr.P.C must have taken into consideration the plight of the petitioner when it was specially pleaded before him.
35. Apart from all these aspects in view of the specific direction of the Special Judge, the health condition must have been brought to the notice and basing on the further order by the learned judge, petitioner should have been discharged from the hospital. It is submitted by the petitioner counsel, in view of tenderness in the anal region petitioner is suffering and Further everyday as per the advice he has to take sitz bath several times and apply ointment. In view of the burning pain he is not in a position to do it on his own. Even as per the report 6 of the medical officer District Jail 04.07.2020 petitioner is complaining of passing blocky stool and pain, retrosternal burning pain and pain anal region. There is no hesitation to say that in this case there is clear violation of human rights due to which, the petitioner had to undergo lot of pain and suffering and several procedures and surgeries.
36. The petitioner has sought for treatment in a private corporate hospital at Vijayawada or Guntur at his expense and not specified any particular name. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB has submitted that she cannot propose any other hospital as she is opposing the application. On enquiry by this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has suggested the names of few corporate hospitals in Vijayawada and Guntur. Considering the same, this Court feels that Ramesh Hospitals, Guntur is fully equipped and Specialized hospital, where the petitioner can get better treatment."
9. While highlighting the importance of protecting the fundamental rights of under Trial Prisoners, the learned Single Judge of this Court at Para 39 directed the Jail Authorities therein to refer the petitioner therein to a reputed Corporate Hospital by name „Ramesh Hospitals, Guntur‟ for better medical treatment at the cost of the petitioner therein forthwith.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter relating toN. Chandra Babu Naidu V. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023, wherein at Paras 24, 25, 27, 28 observes as under:
"24. At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the observations made in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has also emphasized the preservation of life both of an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment, in the following words:
".....7. There can be no second opinion that preservation of human life is of paramount importance. That is so on account of the fact that 7 once life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man. The patient whether he be an innocent person or be a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment."
25. This Court places the health and well-being of an individual as the foremost consideration, irrespective of the gravity of the alleged offense. It's important to recognize that custody during the investigative phase should not be perceived as punitive. Every individual has the inherent right to receive comprehensive and effective medical care. This Court firmly upholds the belief that individuals in custody with serious health issues should be granted access to adequate and effective medical treatment. The exercise of discretion in granting interim bail on medical grounds should not be restricted to circumstances where the person's life is in immediate peril. Moreover, there is no conflicting medical report indicating that the petitioner's surgery is unnecessary. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is suffering from specific ailments that demand medical attention, particularly regarding his right eye.
27. Furthermore, it is this Court's steadfast belief that a patient in need of medical attention should be granted immediate, effective, and comprehensive treatment. Additionally, the choice of the medical facility for treatment should remain with the patient.
28. Considering the painful and pressing nature of the petitioner's reported health conditions, and without delving into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant interim bail solely for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to undergo the necessary medical examination. The medical report clearly indicates that the petitioner requires cataract surgery on his right eye. Therefore, it is a reasonable proposition to permit him to seek treatment at the same hospital where he had the surgery for his left eye." 8
The complaint of the petitioner in that case was as under:
"15. ......"Complete Blood Picture, Renal Function Tests, Liver Function Tests, Serum Electrolytes, Coagulation profile, HbA1C, Complete Urine Examination, E.C.G., X-Ray Chest, 2D Echo.""
11. While considering the case of the petitioner therein,a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition by granting interim bail on medical grounds for a period of four (04) weeks.
12. In the instant case, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner requests this Court not for enlarging the petitioner on bail on medical grounds temporarily, but for referring the petitioner to better medical treatment to any Corporate Hospital.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner furthermore submits that any Corporate Hospital which is in the nominal rolls of this Court, the petitioner may be referred. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the State submits that his vitals go normal.
13. Taking into consideration the health condition of the petitioner as mentioned in the medical records produced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-State, this Court feels that it would be appropriate and necessary to refer the petitioner to "Aayush Hospital, Vijayawada" for evaluation of his health condition and gettinga report to that effect. 9
14. Therefore, the Interlocutory Application is partly allowed with the following directions.
i) The Superintendent, District Jail, Vijayawada is directed to refer the petitioner, who is in Judicial custody of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid in Crime No.208 of 2019 in connection with C.C.No.253 of 2024 to Aayush Hospitals, Vijayawada, for the better treatment at the cost of the petitioner forthwith.
ii) The petitioner shall be admitted by the Aayush Hospitals for complete medical examination. The hospital authorities shall permit the assistance of petitioner‟s wife as medical attendant and in her absence, any one of the family person(s) referred by her.
iii) The Director or the appropriate authority of Aayush Hospitals, Vijayawada shall take steps for complete examination of the health condition of the petitioner and shall place a report in sealed cover before this Court on 05.06.2025 without fail.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5717 of 2025 Post the matter on 05.06.2025.
______________________________ DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Date: 29.05.2025 MSI