Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shri Raju Rajasekharan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 May, 2025
APHC010197382025
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.1 of 2025
In/and
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4242/2025
Between:
Raju Rajasekharan ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VMR LEGAL
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
I.A.No.1 of 2025
ORDER:
The application is filed under Section 480 r/w Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Sanhita,, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') seeking interim bail in Crl.P.No.4242 of 2025 in connection with FIR No.470/2024, dated 25.09.2024 on the file of the SHO, Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati 2 District, for the offences punishable under Sections 274, 275, 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2), 299, 336(3), 340(2) r/w Section 49 and 3(5) of the 'BNSS' and Sections 51 & 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. While the petition for grant of bail 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.
2. Mr. Harsha Vardhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in the judicial custody on remand from 09.02.2025 and he was falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner was in Judicial remand for more than 100 days and as such offences under Sections 316(5) and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity 'the BNS.,') would not be attracted and the petitioner is entitled for bail. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.3067 of 2025 on 02.04.2025 has granted an interim protection of not to take any coercive steps against another accused in the similar circumstances. It is furthermore submitted that the petitioner has been suffering from various health ailments that have been developed due to age and is also suffering from life threatening issues like coronary artery disease for which he had multiple cardiac stents in April, 2012. The petitioner has been treated with Anti-Tuberculous medication for a working diagnosis Tuberculous lymphadenitis and his previous PET CT report has mentioned a possibility of Stage IV Lymphoproliferative disorder and also a possibility for a metastatic disease. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner urges this 3 Court to refer the petitioner to any Hospital where necessary treatment would be provided for securing the good health of the petitioner. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 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.2 in the case.
3. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, while opposing to enlarge the petitioner temporarily on bail, submitted that this Court on 15.05.2025 directed the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore to get advanced medical treatment to the petitioner, if required, and file a report to that effect. On 20.05.2025, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore has forwarded a medical certificate along with his letter stating that the petitioner is getting required medical treatment in the Central Prison, Nellore. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that referring the petitioner for higher medical institution for any treatment is not necessary. He relies on the Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 wherein at Para Nos. 15, 16 & 17, it is held as under:
"15. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant - accused requests that Vice Chancellor, K.G.M.U., Lucknow may be directed to determine the gravity of illness by which the applicant-accused is suffering and whether the adequate medical facility in respect to the same is available in the Jail Hospital, Lucknow/K.G.M.U., Lucknow or not?1
2020 SCC Online AII 1251 4
16. Accordingly, in view of the above said facts, as an interim measure, it is provided that the applicant-accused be sent to the department of Urology of K.G.M.U., Lucknow where he should be examined/admitted as per opinion of doctor concerned doctor. However, the admission/treatment of the applicant- accused shall be under the supervision of police authorities/team to be constituted by the concerned authority.
17. As requested by learned Additional Advocate General, is at liberty to constitute a medical board by Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow to examine the illness by which the applicant-accused is suffering and submit the report whether the treatment for the same is available in the Jail Hospital, Lucknow/K.G.M.U., Lucknow or not?"
4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Kinjarapu Atchannaidu v. The 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 5 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 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."
5. 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.
6. A learned Single Judge of this Court in N. 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:
6
"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 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 7 reasonable proposition to permit him to seek treatment at the same hospital where he had the surgery for his left eye."
7. As seen from the order, 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."
8. While considering the case of the petitioner therein, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition by granting interim bail on medical grounds for a period of four (04) weeks. In the instant case, the petition is filed for interim bail on medical grounds. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court on 15.05.2025, a medical certificate was issued by the Medical Officer, Central Prison, Nellore, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has a coronary artery disease; he underwent PTCA with stent deployment done to MID LAD and PLV and he is on treatment. It is further mentioned as under:
"He underwent PET CT scan and lymph node biopsy in August-2024. PET CT: Multiple bilateral cervical/(Supraclavicular/ Mediastinal/ retroperitoneal and bilateral iliac lymph nodes. Diffuse metabolic activity in left side with left plural effusion.
1-? Lymph proliferative Disorder 2-? Tuberculosis HPE: Left level IV node biopsy - Necrotizing granulomatous inflammation. - Negative for malignancy and started on anti tubercular treatment, and completed ATT.
He underwent right URSL and DJ stenting for Renal Stones in December-2024."
9. Even in the medical record submitted by the petitioner, Kauvery Hospital, Chennai and SIMS, Chennai, there are references that the petitioner 8 has been suffering from the above mentioned diseases. Therefore, the petitioner is required to undergo certain tests and treatments which are not generally available in any of the Government Hospitals in Nellore. Taking into consideration the age and health condition of the petitioner as mentioned in the medical records produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, this Court is of the benign view to refer the petitioner to Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences (SVIMS) Hospital, Tirupati, for evaluation of his health condition, and necessary treatment, if any, and submitting report to that effect to this court.
10. Therefore, the Interlocutory Application is partly allowed with the following directions.
i) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore is directed to refer the petitioner, who is in Judicial custody in Crime No.470 of 2024, dated 25.09.2024 of East Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District, to Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences (SVIMS) Hospital, Tirupati, for a better treatment at the cost of the petitioner forthwith.
ii) The petitioner shall be admitted by the Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences (SVIMS) Hospital, Tirupati, for complete medical examination and necessary treatment. The hospital authorities shall permit the assistance of petitioner's relative(s) as medical attendant (s).
iii) The Director or the appropriate authority of Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences (SVIMS) Hospital, Tirupati, shall take steps for 9 complete examination of the health condition of the petitioner and necessary treatment and place a report in a sealed cover before this Court on 05.06.2025 without fail.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4242 of 2025 Post the matter on 05.06.2025.
______________________________ DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Date: 29.05.2025 MSI