Chattisgarh High Court
Suraj Chokhani vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 31 January, 2025
1 / 12
2025:CGHC:5924
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2529 of 2024
Order reserved on 17/10/2024
Order passed on 31/01/2025
Suraj Chokhani S/o Ramesh Kumar Chokhani Aged About 44 Years R/o
House No. 430, Ae Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, Kolkata, West Bengal.
700064
... Petitioner
versus
Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India Represented By Its
Assistant Director, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Raipur Zonal Office, A-1 Block, 2nd
Floor, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Agrawal, Advocate (through virtual mode) along with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/ED : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order
1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of Digitally signed by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure A/1), passed by learned Special Judge 2 / 12 (Prevention of Money Laundering Act)/4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in ED Case No. 1 of 2024, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner seeking necessary direction to permit the petitioner to be admitted in a private hospital for a period of 4 days for the purpose of undergoing medical tests.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the ECIR bearing No. RPZO/10/2022, dated 06.10.2022 and amended ECIR dated 02.09.2023 has been registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as PMLA, 2002"). In the ECIR, it is alleged that about 6 FIRs have been registered against the various accused persons for the offences of Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy, which are the scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002. The said FIRs have been registered, whose details are given herein below:
(i) FIR No. 112 of 2022, dated 30.03.2022, registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg for the offence under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC,
(ii) FIR No. 206 of 2023, dated 02.06.2023 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Vishakhapatnam Commissionerate, Andhra Pradesh,
(iii) FIR No. 37 of 2023, dated 17.03.2023 registered at Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg for the offence under Section 420 of IPC,
(iv) FIR No. 86 of 2023, dated 27.02.2023 registered at Police Station Chhavani, District Durg for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.3 / 12
(v) FIR No. 336 of 2023, dated 10.08.2023 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur for the offence under Sections 420, 34 of IPC.
(vi) FIR No. 685 of 2023, dated 11.08.2023 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.
*******The Enforcement Directorate (in short 'ED') had filed the first prosecution complaint on 20.10.2023 in the present ECIR under Section 44 read with Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 for the offence under Section 3/4 of the PMLA, 2002 against 14 accused persons. In the first ECIR, the present petitioner has not been made an accused. On 01.01.2024, the ED filed a supplementary prosecution complaint in the present ECIR against 5 accused persons, in which also the present petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused. On the ECIR submitted by the ED, the Learned Special Court took cognizance of the offence and issued notices to the other accused persons, who were not in custody, vide order dated 19.01.2024. *******On 28.02.2024, at about 6:50 AM, the ED conducted search and seizure proceedings in the residential premises of the petitioner at AE Block, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata in the presence of the petitioner. The search was continued till 4:50 AM on 29.02.2024 i.e. almost about 24 hours and various Panchnamas were prepared during the search. The said Panchnamas were also signed by the present petitioner. On 29.02.2024, the petitioner was taken to the ED office at Raipur along with the sister-in-law of the petitioner and at Raipur, he was put up in the Ivy Hotel by the ED.
4 / 12*******On 03.03.2024, the petitioner was formally arrested and was produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who was the Remand Duty Magistrate and the ED sought custody of the petitioner for further investigation. After the investigation, the prosecution complaint has been filed against the petitioner and ED case No. 1 of 2024 is registered by the learned Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur.
*******During the proceeding of ED case, the petitioner filed an application on 14.08.2024 before the learned Special Court, Raipur seeking direction to permit the petitioner to be admitted into private hospital for a period of 4 days for the purpose of undergoing medical tests. In the said application the petitioner has averred that on 24.07.2024, when the wife of the petitioner met him in the Central Jail, Raipur, he informed her about symptoms of his ailment, such as fatigue, breathlessness, exertion and blood in stool. Thereafter, on 31.07.2024, his wife has consulted Dr. S. Chhatterjee at Kolkata and obtained medical advice wherein the doctor has advised the petitioner to undergo colonoscopy. Along with the application, the medical prescription obtained from Dr. S. Chhatterjee, Kolkata was annexed.
*******After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for permission to be admitted in private hospital for 4 days for his medical tests vide its order dated 29.08.2024 observing that the doctor who has issued the 5 / 12 medical prescription to the petitioner on 31.07.2024 is issued without physically examined the petitioner and based on it sending the petitioner for his medical text is not necessary, however he has to medically examined by the Jail Hospital first, and based on the opinion given by the Jail doctors, the petitioner should be taken to other higher centre under the jail manual and as per the ailment and physical condition of the petitioner. The said order dated 29.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge is under challenge in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in custody and the Jail Authorities are required to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner for his ailment and the learned Special Court had the power to direct the petitioner to be admitted in the hospital for his test/treatment, but the learned Special Judge left it on the discretion of the Jail Authorities. The petitioner is asking for his medical test from the higher medical centre as he is suffering from blood in stool and fatigue and breathlessness. He would further submit that Dr. S. Chhatterjee, Kolkata has advised the petitioner to colonoscopy, which cannot be undergone in the Jail Hospital as the necessary equipment for the same are not available there. Looking to his deteriorating health condition, he is required for immediate proper medical treatment in a private hospital. He would also submit that right to medical treatment of an accused of under-trial prisoner is a 6 / 12 right covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no person can be deprived of the same.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment passed by Bombay High Court in Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2004 SCC Online Bom 1221, Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement, order dated 13.05.2022, passed in Bail Application No. 288 of 2022, Bombay High Court, Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, Order dated 26.050.2023, in SLP (Crl.) No. 6561/2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court, Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others, (1981) 1 SCC 608, Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1996 SC 1388, Jaya Chheda v. State of Maharashtra, order dated 24.10.2017, in Criminal Appeal No. 1808 of 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Sumathi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, order dated 17.06.2016 in WP (MD) No. 9601 of 2016 (Madras High Court) and Pratim @ Peter Balram Makerjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation, order dated 01.07.2019 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1381 of 2019 (Bombay High Court). He would further submit that looking to the health condition of the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner may be permitted to admit in a private hospital for his medical test or treatment as prayed in the application. 7 / 12
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ED vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that from the medical prescription issued by Dr. S. Chatterjee dated 31.07.2024, it is evidently clear that the said medical report was prepared by the doctor without there being any physical medical diagnosis and the prescription has been prepared on the basis of oral request made by the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is detained in jail for a serious offence of money laundering and therefore, there is every possibility that the wife of the petitioner may describe the wrong symptom to the doctor to obtain a report from him and to get the relaxation. There are so many other accused persons, who are still absconding and there is possibility that the petitioner by taking advantage of facilities available in the private hospital, may temper the evidences and may give crucial information to the other accused persons about the case. Insisting by the petitioner for admitting him in a private hospital itself creates a doubt upon him.
*******He would further submit that the respondent department does not have any objection in medical examination of the petitioner by the doctors available in the Jail Hospital and if they advised for his further medical treatment or test and if they furnished the medical report with the Jail Authorities about some diseases for which his treatment is not available in the Jail Hospital, the respondent department has no objection for his treatment/test at any government hospital at Raipur. 8 / 12 There is Medical College Hospital, DKS Super Speciality Hospital as well as AIIMS Hospital is there at Raipur where the petitioner can be taken for his treatment/test, if he requires for the same and diagnosed by the doctor of Jail Hospital. He would further submit that the petitioner was medically examined by the jail doctors as well as by the District Medical Board and no any such ailment has been found. He would also submit that on the basis of prescription which has been issued based on information given by the wife of the petitioner, he cannot be admitted in the private hospital. It is the Jail Authorities who has to take care of his health condition and if he is having any complication, he may get examined by Jail Hospital, and if he requires further treatment, which is not available there, he may refer for higher centre, therefore, there is no ground to allow the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.
7. This Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 called the medical examination report of the petitioner duly examined by the District Medical Board. In compliance of that, the Jail Authorities have submitted the medical examination report of the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 and the medical certificate of the District Medical Board, Raipur has given the following certificate:
9 / 12
MEDICAL CERTIFICATE *******We the members of District Medical Board Raipur have examined Mr. Suraj Chokhani, age 50 Yrs./M S/O Ramesh Chokhani Come With Letter From Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur (C.G.), S.N./10362/Jail aspatal/2024 datted 24.09.2024 With Complain of hypertension and bleeding per rectum since one month. On complete examination of rectum & anus found to be normal and Symptomatic treatment given. Patient is not a known case of systemic hypertension and at present his blood pressure is normal.
8. Along with the medical certificate, the OPD Slip dated 24.09.2024 is also annexed, in which the following has been mentioned:
Prisoner Pt. came from Central Jail Raipur (C.G.) for medical examination, B/B Umakant (620) C/O ep HTM.
C/O Bleeding per rectum: 1 month.
On the same day i.e. on 24.09.2024 he was medically examined by the Dr. D.K. Sinha (MS) and Dr. Samriddhi (MD) and following prescription has been written by them:
C/O Bleeding PR x 1 month Few drops seen at end of motion as with mild itching No constipation O/E perianal region (N) Anal tone and PR tone and protoscopy done No haemorroids No man No blood fom Adv. : Syp Lectose 15 ml HS T Dajion 1000 IV BD RVAJNR 7 days 1 Su 10 / 12 *******From the medical report of the petitioner submitted by District Medical Board, Raipur dated 24.09.2024, it was found that on complete examination of rectum and anus of the petitioner found to be normal and symptomatic treatment given. Further, the medical board has also observed that the patient is not a known case of systemic hypertension and at present his blood pressure is normal. The health condition of the petitioner was not found to be abnormal and he is not required to be taken to any higher centre. *******From the prescription dated 31.07.2024, issued by Dr. S. Chhatterjee, Kolkata, it is quite vivid that the tests prescribed on the basis of symptoms described by wife of the petitioner, who informed him that the petitioner is complaining of bleeding P/R and therefore he advised for colonoscopy. It is very difficult for the Jail Authorities to take the petitioner to private hospital for his colonoscopy test only on the basis of such medical prescription, which has been issued by the doctor only on the information given by the wife of the petitioner and without physically examined the patient. It appears that it is a general opinion of the doctor based on the common query.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, AIR 2020 SC 5014 has held in Para 16 of its judgment that :
"16........... humane treatment by the prison authorities. There can be no two views with regard to above. Humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. Furthermore, a prisoner, who is 11 / 12 suffering from an ailment, has to be given due treatment and care while in prison."
10. In the present case, from the medical report of the petitioner dated 24.09.2024, it is found that there is no serious medical ailment suffered by the petitioner, which needs for him to be shifted or taken to any higher medical centre for his test/treatment.
11. Though the petitioner has his fundamental right to get proper medical treatment and when the person is sent to jail, the Court is not only empowered, but it should be their endeavour to ensure through the executive agency the availability of basic needs to the person who are detained in custody. It is not denied by the respondent/ED that if the petitioner is required for any test/treatment, they will not take him to the higher centre, rather the respondent/ED and the Jail Authorities are bound to take him to the higher centre as per his requirement. A procedure has been prescribed in the jail manual for treatment providing to the prisoner and taking him to the higher centre for treatment. The higher medical centres, like; Medical College Hospital, Raipur, DKS Super Speciality Hospital and AIIMS Hospital, Raipur are there, in which all the medical facilities are available and more efficient than the private hospital.
12. The facts and circumstances of the cases in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are different than the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case the petitioner is not found to be suffered from the ailment as disclosed or 12 / 12 suspected in the prescription of Dr. S. Chatterjee, dated 31.07.2024, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner by the same.
13. For the foregoing reasons and also in view of the medical report of the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 submitted by the District Medical Board, Raipur, I do not find any ground to allow the petition and to direct the petitioner to be admitted in the private hospital for 4 days for the purpose of undergoing medical tests.
14. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved