# 8 S.C.R. 984 SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI

- **Citation:** [2016] 8 S.C.R. 984
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-10-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.1834of2013
- **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/8-s-c-r-984-sita-ram-v-balbir-bali-31452
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Contempt of Court - Willful and deliberate violation of order
of Supreme Court and obstruction in administration of justice -
Cancellation of bail of respondent-accused by Supreme Court order
dated 24.10.2013 - Despite multiple non-bailable warrants issued
0
by trial court respondent-accused could not be arrested - Contempt
petition filed - Respondent-accused failed to enter appearance
despite service of notice - Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP)
on being asked by the Court, stated in his affidavit that as per the
statement of the son of the accused he was admitted in a hospital
and also produced Medical Certificate dated 7.2.2015 - The Court
E directed personal appearance of SSP and Medical Director of the
Hospital - The Court further directed enquiry as to whether the
accused continued to avoid arrest and escaped with or without the
help of the ho~pital - As per Enquiry Report the accused remained
admitted in the hospital for a total 527 days on three occasions viz.
F From 15.11.2013 to 25.12.2013, from 31.12.2013 to 9.4.2014, and
from 11.4.2014 to 1.5.2015 - The Court further issued notice to the
Managing Director of the hospital - Held: In the facts of the case,
it is evident that the prolonged admission without any justifiable
medical reason till action was taken by the Court, in contempt
jurisdiction, was essentially to defeat the order dated 24.10.2013
G passed by Supreme Court and repeated non-bailable warrants issued
by the trial court - The accused, by disobeying the order of the
Court is liable for committing civil contempt and by defiance of the
order so passed has obstructed administration of justice and thus
further liable for criminal contempt - Hospital was the party to the
attempts on part of the accused to defeat the order passed by the
H
9~
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI
985
Court by providing protection and asylum to the accused and thereby A
obstructed administration of justice - Therefore, the Medical Director
and the Managing Director of the hospital are liable for contempt
of court - However, one more opportunity is given to all three
contemnors - The conduct exhibited by concerned police officials
in not ensuring compliance of orders passed by trial court calls for
8
strict administrative action - The Court expressed dissatisfaction
regarding the conduct of the SSP.
The Court
HELD: 1. From the record and the Enquiry Report, it is
clear that soon after the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this c
Court (whereby bail order passed by High Court was set aside),
the respondent remained admitted in the hospital for a total of
527 days. Nothing has been placed on record, neither any medical
condition nor reasons have been adverted to why such admission
was required in the first place. As found in the Enquiry, no
laboratory test was conducted during the period of admission from
D
25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from 12.04.2014 to 01.05.2015.
This shows that the illness as projected was not serious at all and
no Intensive treatment as Indoor patient was required or called
for. This prolonged admission without any justifiable medical
reason was essentially to defeat the direction Issued by this Court E
in its Order dated 24.10.2013 and repeated non-bailable warrants
Issued by the Trial Court. (Para 16)(1005-D-F)
2. During the third admission of the respondent from
12.04.2014 the first payment to the hospital was made only on
10.01.2015 I.e. nearly after 247 days. It Is inconceivable that In
F
normal circumstances a man, who has no ailment or a medical
condition requiring emergency treatment would be kept as indoor
patient without any laboratory test and without recovering a single
paisa for more than 247 days. Moreover, the record indicates
that on as many as 47 occasions during his admission the
respondent was allowed to move out of the hospital without even
G
an endorsement by any medical professional justifying such
movement. The Enquiry Report further shows that there used
to be regular stream of visitors during

## Text

_Characters 0–39,741 of 66,793. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39741 for what follows._

A
B
c
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 984
SITA RAM
v.
BALBIR @ BALI .
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of2014)
In
(Criminal Appeal No.1834of2013)
D~CEMBER 15, 2016
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.)
Contempt of Court - Willful and deliberate violation of order
of Supreme Court and obstruction in administration of justice -
Cancellation of bail of respondent-accused by Supreme Court order
dated 24.10.2013 - Despite multiple non-bailable warrants issued
0
by trial court respondent-accused could not be arrested - Contempt
petition filed - Respondent-accused failed to enter appearance
despite service of notice - Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP)
on being asked by the Court, stated in his affidavit that as per the
statement of the son of the accused he was admitted in a hospital
and also produced Medical Certificate dated 7.2.2015 - The Court
E directed personal appearance of SSP and Medical Director of the
Hospital - The Court further directed enquiry as to whether the
accused continued to avoid arrest and escaped with or without the
help of the ho~pital - As per Enquiry Report the accused remained
admitted in the hospital for a total 527 days on three occasions viz.
F From 15.11.2013 to 25.12.2013, from 31.12.2013 to 9.4.2014, and
from 11.4.2014 to 1.5.2015 - The Court further issued notice to the
Managing Director of the hospital - Held: In the facts of the case,
it is evident that the prolonged admission without any justifiable
medical reason till action was taken by the Court, in contempt
jurisdiction, was essentially to defeat the order dated 24.10.2013
G passed by Supreme Court and repeated non-bailable warrants issued
by the trial court - The accused, by disobeying the order of the
Court is liable for committing civil contempt and by defiance of the
order so passed has obstructed administration of justice and thus
further liable for criminal contempt - Hospital was the party to the
attempts on part of the accused to defeat the order passed by the
H
9~
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI
985
Court by providing protection and asylum to the accused and thereby A
obstructed administration of justice - Therefore, the Medical Director
and the Managing Director of the hospital are liable for contempt
of court - However, one more opportunity is given to all three
contemnors - The conduct exhibited by concerned police officials
in not ensuring compliance of orders passed by trial court calls for
8
strict administrative action - The Court expressed dissatisfaction
regarding the conduct of the SSP.
The Court
HELD: 1. From the record and the Enquiry Report, it is
clear that soon after the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this c
Court (whereby bail order passed by High Court was set aside),
the respondent remained admitted in the hospital for a total of
527 days. Nothing has been placed on record, neither any medical
condition nor reasons have been adverted to why such admission
was required in the first place. As found in the Enquiry, no
laboratory test was conducted during the period of admission from
D
25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from 12.04.2014 to 01.05.2015.
This shows that the illness as projected was not serious at all and
no Intensive treatment as Indoor patient was required or called
for. This prolonged admission without any justifiable medical
reason was essentially to defeat the direction Issued by this Court E
in its Order dated 24.10.2013 and repeated non-bailable warrants
Issued by the Trial Court. (Para 16)(1005-D-F)
2. During the third admission of the respondent from
12.04.2014 the first payment to the hospital was made only on
10.01.2015 I.e. nearly after 247 days. It Is inconceivable that In
F
normal circumstances a man, who has no ailment or a medical
condition requiring emergency treatment would be kept as indoor
patient without any laboratory test and without recovering a single
paisa for more than 247 days. Moreover, the record indicates
that on as many as 47 occasions during his admission the
respondent was allowed to move out of the hospital without even
G
an endorsement by any medical professional justifying such
movement. The Enquiry Report further shows that there used
to be regular stream of visitors during the stay of respondent in
the hospital.
These features clearly show that the respondent
was in perfect condition of health and never really required H
986
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 8 S.C.R.
admission in the hospital as an indoor patient.[Para 19](1006-FH]
3. The conduct exhibited by the respondent in getting
himself admitted in the hospital when there was no medical reason
to justify such admission and in continuing to remain admitted till
action was taken by this Court in contempt jurisdiction, exhibits
scant respect and regard for the orders and processes issued by
the Court. Despite issuance of notice, the respondent has neither
filed any response nor tendered any apology. The respondent is
guilty of having committed contempt of the direction issued by
this Court in its Order dated 24.10.2013 and also in obstructing
the administration of justice.(Para 18](1006-B-D]
4. Willful disobedience to a direction issued by this Court
on 24.10.2013 on part of the respondent is quite evident. He was
party to the proceedings and bound by the order and as such his
liability on that count stands established. Further, by his defiance
D of the direction so issued, be also obstructed administration of
justice. He is thus liable for committing civil contempt as well as
criminal contempt. [Para 23][1009-B-C]
E
F
5. The role of the hospital was certainly not as innocent as
is sought to be projected and the hospital was party to the
attempts on part of the respondent to defeat the Order passed
by this Court. The explanation offered by the hospital that the
respondent trapped the hospital and by non-payment of the bills
kept prolonging his stay in the hospital does not inspire
confidence at all. If the hospital was really a victim of the
machinations of the respondent, at the first opportunity i.e. when
requisition was made by the police on 13.02.2015, the hospital
would have responded immediately. The requisition dated
13.02.2015 had informed the hospital that respondent was a
proclaimed offender and that his custody was required. This
requisition was close on the heels of the medical certificate dated
G 07.02.2015 and if that certificate was a correct one, the time was
ripe for discharge of the respondent. However, the hospital
refused to discharge the respondent. The theory that the hospital
was trapped by the designs of the respondent is a mere eyewash. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the hospital
H extended protection and asylum to the respondent to defeat the
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI
987
Order passed by this Court as well as those passed by the Trial
A
Court and thereby obstructed administration of justice. [Paras
19 and 21][1006-H; 1007-A, G-H; 1008-A-C]
6. The continued admission for such a long period as indoor
patient was not justifiable for any reason or medical condition of
the respondent. Both these medical professionals (Medical B
Director and Managing Director of the hospital) are responsible
for such prolonged admission which was actuated by only one
reason which was to extend medical asylum to the respondent as
a cover to defeat the orders passed by this Court and the Trial
Court. In this process, these medical professionals not only C
helped the respondent in violating the Order of this court but
they also obstructed administration of justice.[Para 22)[1008-DE]
7. The Medical Professionals were not parties to the matter
where the direction in question was passed. As regards their
liability questions that arise are: 1) whether a person, who is not
D
bound by a direction issued by the Court could be held guilty for
committing contempt of court for his conduct in either directly
aiding and abetting violation on part of the person who is bound
by such direction; and 2) what is the extent of liability of such
person. The Medical Professionals extended medical asylum to
E
the respondent without there being any reason or medical
condition justifying prolonged admission of the respondent as an
indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed by this
Court and the Trial Court, and thereby aided and assisted the
respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct
these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of F
justice. [Paras 23, 24 and 25][1009-C-D; 1012-E-G]
Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Anr.
(1991) 2 All ER 398 - relied on.
Seaward v. Paterson (1895-99) All ER 1127; Z Ltd. v. A
G
(1982) 1 All ER 556 -
referred to.
8. The respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered
an apology. At the same time the Managing Director of the
company that owns the hospital is 76 years of age. Considering
the fact that these are medical professionals with sufficient H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
A standing, ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity Is
granted to them to present their view on the issue of punishment.
In the circumstances, presence of these three contemnors on
January 2, 2017 is directed. The respondent is In custody and
therefore the concerned police is directed to facilitate such
B production of the respondent. The contemnors can also present
their views and make appropriate submission in writing. [Para
26][1013-A-C]
9. The Order passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013
shows that an affidavit of son of the respondent was flied along
with a copy of review petition. The application seeking exemption
C was rejected by the Trial Court and SHO concerned was issued
notice why the war1·ant of arrest was not executed. Subsequent
Orders dated 05.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and 15.04.2014
Indicate that fresh warrants of arrest were issued through
Superintendent of Police. Neither the respondent surrendered
D to custody as directed by this Court nor the concerned police
took any steps to arrest him or try to find his whereabouts. No
report was made to the Trial Court. What is evident is total inaction
on the part of the police which helped the respondent in evading
the arrest and defeating the orders passed by this Court as well
E
as by the Trial Court. [Para 17)[1005-F-H; 1006-A-B)
10. The conduct exhibited by the concerned police officials
In not ensuring compliance of the Orders passed by the Trial
Court calls for strict administrative action. The Director General
of Police of Haryana and the Home Secretary are directed to look
Into the matter and ensure that the departmental proceedings
F
are taken to logical end at the earliest. The status report/action
taken report in that behalf shall be flied in this court. [Para
27] [1013-D-E]
11. As regards the role of Superintendent of Police 'SA',
he took charge as Superintendent of Police on 24.11.2014 i.e.
G well after the Order dated 24.10.2013 of this Court and after the
Orders directing issuance of non-bailable warrants against the
respondent were passed by the Trial Court. However, even
according to his own affidavit, If he became aware that respondent
had not surrendered despite cancellation of his bail and that he
was admitted in the hospital only In February 2015, the steps
H that he took after 16.2.2015 cannot strictly be called actions taken
SITA RAM v. BALBIR@ BALI
989
with reasonable promptitude. Even according to affidavit dated A
2.07.2015 nothing was done during the period 27.02.2015 to
23.03.2015. The action apparently was initiated only after the
Order dated 24.4.2015 was passed by this Court. Though the
Court expresses dissatisfaction, It does not deem It appropriate
to carry the matter further as against him. [Para 28][1013-F-H;
8
1014-A]
Case Law Reference
(1895-99) All ER 1127 referred to
Para 24
(1982) 1 All ER 556
referred to
Para 24
(1991) 2 All ER 398
relied on
Para 24
C
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C)
No. 3 74of2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of2013.
From the Order dated 11.02.2013 by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. M-40691/12 (O&M).
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Dushyant A. Dave, V. Mohana, Siddharth D
Luthra, Sr. Advs., Rahul Verma, Dr. Monika Gusain, Rishi Malhotra, R.
Balasubramanian, Santosh Kumar, Pranav Kumar, Ms. Sarita Panda,
Ms. Anindita Pujari, M. K. Maroria, T. A. Khan, Mohd. Taraz, V. Gandhi,
Sameer Chaudhary, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT J, I. This petition under Section 12 of E
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')
highlights willful and deliberate violation of the Judgment and Order dated
24.10.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013
and seeks initiation of appropriate proceedings under the Act.
2. The petitioner, original informant in FIR No.141 dated
F
06.05.2011 with Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana for
offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013 assailing the Order
dated 11.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
0
granting bail to the respondent. While setting aside the Order granting
bail, this Court in its Judgment and dated 24.10.2013 observed as under:
"4.
. .............. In the FIR, the Appellant/Informant
has stated that Respondent No. I fired upon his brother-inlaw Vishnu from his revolver and thereafter Sombir also
fired upon Vishnu. The other persons mentioned also
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 8 S.C.R.
A
opened fire indiscriminately leading to firearm injuries on
several persons who were at the shop of the Appellant/
Informant
at
that
fateful
time.
B
c
D
E
F
5.
. ........................... Respondent No. I is
indubitably a very influential person in the area, at the time
of the incident he was an ex-MLA. Section 109 and Section
149, as envisaged under the IPC have been cited. By
Orders dated 23.1.2013, the Addi. Sessions Judge has, on a
perusal of the police report and material documents, found
existence of a prima facie case under Sections 148, 302
read with Section 149, 307 read with Sections 149, 323 read
with Section 149 JPC against all the accused and in addition
to this a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC, I 09 !PC
and 25 of Arms Act against Balbir @ Bali, a prima facie
case under Section 307 !PC against Naresh and Rishi, a
prima facie case under Section 25 of Arms Act against
Dinesh @ Kala and Sunil and a prima facie case under
Section 27 of Arms Act.
6.
Keeping all these factors in perspective,
especially the wide-scale injuries suffered by several
persons, there is a strong prima facie case of the involvement
of the Respondent No. I in the alleged crimes. Moreover,
the antecedents of Respondent No. I are such that a
reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with
witnesses or leveling of threats is imminent and omnipresent.
The severity of the attack should not be overlooked. For
these manifold reasons, we set aside the impugned Order
dated 11.2.2013, allow the Appeal and cancel the bail granted
to Respondent No. I who shall surrender to custody
forthwith."
3. Thus, while setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court
G took into account the role played by the respondent in firing upon the
deceased and the fact that he was an influential person in the area with
criminal antecedents. In keeping with direction to surrender to custody
forthwith, it was expected of the respondent to do the needful. However,
the record indicates otherwise and shows attempts to evade execution
H of consequential non-bailable warrants issued from time to time leading
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
991
to delays in trial. The Orders passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013,
A
05.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and 14.05.2014 bear testimony in
that behalf, which Orders were as under:
20.11.2013
"Present: Shri A.S. Kadian, Public Prosecutor for the State
assisted by Shri R.K. Sehgal, counsel for the complainant.
Accused Sunil and Ajay in custody, whereas all the
remaining accused except accused Balwan alias Balli on
bail, with Shri O.P. Chugh, Shri Surinder Verma, Advocates.
Accused Balwan absent.
Three PWs namely Sita Ram, Ram Chander and Ram
Mehar are present, but their statements could not be
recorded as warrant of arrest issued against accused
Balwan not received back either executed or unexecuted
and an application seeking exemption of accused Balwan
alias Balli from personal appearance for today along with
affidavit of his son and photocopy of the Special Criminal
Review Petition, has been moved. Heard. Perused. Since
there is no stay granted by Hon 'ble Supreme Court oflndia
in this case and further more bail of accused-applicant
Balwan had already been cancelled by Hon'ble Supreme
Court oflndia, thus there is no merit in this application and
the same is hereby dismissed and fresh warrant of arrest
of accused Balwan be issued, 7.12.2013. PWs present
today stand discharged and would be summoned after
procuring the presence of accused Balwan.
Since there is non-compliance of the issuance of warrant
of arrest against accused Bal wan in view of the Order dated
24.10.2013 as passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court oflndia,
therefore, notice be given to SHO, Police Station Kalanaur
as to why warrant of arrest of accused Balwan alias Balli
have not been sent back to this court either executed or
unexecuted, for 7.12.2013 ."
05.02.2014
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016] 8 S.C.R.
A
"Present: Shri A.S. Kadian, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Accused Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining accused
on bail except accused Balwan, with counsel Shri O.P.
• Ch ugh, Advocate .............................. .
Warrant of arrest of accused Balwan received back
B
unexecuted. Now fresh warrant of arrest of accused
Balwan be issued through SPRohtakfor 15.03.2014. Notice
to surety and identifier of accused Balwan alias Bali be
also issued for the date fixed."
c
D
E
F
G
H
15.03.2014
"Present : Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the
State. Accused Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining
accused on bail except accused Balbir alias Bali.
Warrant of arrest of accused Balbir alias Bali received back
unexecuted. Now fresh non-bailable-warrant against
accused Balbir alias Bali be issued through SP Rohtak for
16.4.2014. Notice to his. surety and identifier be issued
through SHO concerned for the date fixed.
16.04.2014
"Present: Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Shri O.P. Chugh, counsel for accused Rohtas and Balbir@
Bali. Accused Ajay in custody while all the remaining
accused
on
bail
except accused Balbir @
Bali ........................ .
An application has been moved on behalf of accused Balbir
@Bali in which it is stated that accused Balbir@Bali has
filed Curative Petition No.12576/2014 in the Hon'bleApex
Court and hence, intimation is being submitted before the
Court. Since warrant of arrest have already been issued
against accused Balbir @ Bali, hence, the filing of the
application on behalf of accused is of no consequence. The
non-bailable warrant which was issued against Balbir @
Bali received back unexecuted and the report is perused.
Fresh non-bailable warrant be again issued against Balbir
SITA RAM v. BALBIR@ BALI
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
@Bali and be sent through Superintendent of Police, Rohtak
with the direction that the same be executed through some
responsible police officer for 14.5.2014."
14.05.2014
" Present Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Shri O.P. Chugh, counsel for the accused Balbir@ Bali.
Accused Ajay in custody while all the remaining accused
on bail except accused Balbir@ Bali.
Non-bailable warrant issued against accused Balbir@Bali
received back unexecuted. Even the bailable warrant issued
against surety has not been executed. Report perused. It
appears that State is not making serious efforts for execution
of the warrant of arrest. Hence, fresh non-bailable warrant
be issued against accused Balbir@ Bali and the same be
sent to a Superintendent of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak
for execution with the direction to get the same executed
through some responsible officer of the police for
07.07.2014. Fresh bailable warrant against surety in the
sum of Rs. I 0,000/- be also issued for the next date of
hearing."
4. These Orders passed by the Trial Court show that although
witnesses for prosecution were present to [ecord their statements on
20.11.2013, no statements could be recorded in the absence of the
accused. Further, on subsequent dates the accused in custody was
produced but the respondent consistently remained absent. Though he
was represented by his Advocate, the record does not indicate whether
the whereabouts of the respondent were disclosed. In these
circumstances, the present petition was filed in which notice was issued
by this Court on 29.08.2014. Since the respondent could not be served,
fresh notice was ordered to be issued on 27.10.2014 to be served through
the District Judge, Rohtak. The compliance report dated 15.01.2015
was forwarded by the District Judge, Rohtak whereafter this Court passed
the followingOrderon 19.01.2015:
"In the present contempt petition also the respondent has
failed to enter appearance despite service of a notice issued
993
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
994
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
by this Court. Our attention is drawn by learned counsel
for the petitioner to an Order dated 14.05.2014 passed by
the Trial Court who also appear to have issued non-bailable
warrants against respondent No. I which warrants also
remain to be unserved despite several efforts. Be that as it
may from the service report dated 14.01.2015 submitted to
this Court it appears that respondent No. I is admitted to
the hospital for the past 15 months. No medical certificate
to that effect is however available on record. In the
circumstance we deem it fit to direct the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak Range to verify whether
C
the statement made by Amit Kumar son of the respondent
regarding admission of respondent No. I in the hospital is
factually correct and to file a report before this Court
regarding his medical condition ifhe is indeed admitted to
the hospital anywhere in the State ofHaryana".
D
5. Accordingly Mr. Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police,
Rohtak submitted an affidavit on 16.02.2015, stating that son of the
respondent in his statement recorded on 8.02.2015 had stated that his
father was admitted in Privat Hospital, Gurgaon and that said son also
produced Medical Certificate dated 7.02.2015 to that effect. After
verifying the fact, instructions were issued to keep close watch and take
E the respondent in custody upon his discharge. The Medical Certificate
dated 07.02.2015 was annexed to the affidavit and the Certificate reads
F
G
H
as under:-
"PRIVAT HOSPITAL DR. SACHDEV PVT. LTD.
DLF PHASE-II, M.G. ROAD,
GURGAON-122002, INDIA.
Date:07.02.2015
MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
Certified that Mr. Balbir Singh is admitted in Privat Hospital
since 11.04.2014 with diagnosis of
An o/c of Ischaemic Heart Disease
With Angioplasty done twice in past
With hypertension
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
With COPD and Acute Examination
With Anxiety with Acid Peptic Disorder
And GIRD.·
He has improved significantly, symptomatically and no
995
A
intervention was done during the hospitalization. He is likely
B
to be discharged in next 5-7 days ....... "
-
6. The matter was taken up on 24.04.20 I 5 when the Counsel for
the State produced copies ofMedicaI Certificates dated I I .04.20I4 and
26.03.20 I 5. The Certificate dated 26.03 .20 I 5 stated thatthe respondent
was fit to be produced in a Court of Law but it did not indicate whether C
he was discharged, and if not discharged, the reason for his continued
admission. This Court, being prima facie of the view that the Hospital
was providing medi_cal asylum to the respondent to avoid arrest, ordered
as under:-
·
" .................... We are in the circumstances inclined to
direct the personal presence of the Superintendent of Police,
Rohtak, and Dr. Munish Prabhakar, Medical Director, Privat
Hospital, Gurgaon, who shall file an affidavit and explain
why:
·
( 1) Respondent No. I has not been taken into custody despite
an order of arrest and medical certificate dated 261h March,
2015 issued by the hospital which declares him
asymptomatic.
(2) The hospital has not formally discharged respondent
No.I ifhe is otherwise fit and does not require any further
hospitalization.
(3) The Medical Director shall also place on record details
about the medical bills raised against respondent No. I from
the date ofhis admission till date and the amount paid towards
the same by the patient or anyone on his behalf.
7. Pursuant to the Order dated 24.04.20 I 5 an affidavit was filed
by Dr. Munish Prabhakar, Medical Director, Privat Hospital, Gurgaon
on 02.07 .20 I 5. Relevant portions of paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the
affidavit were as under:-
D
E
F
G
H
996
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
"5. The patient had improved significantly symptomatically
but required Angiography/Thallium scan for further
management but never gave consent for that. He always
refused consent and wanted conservative treatment.
During the stay he was told many times that he can be
discharged but kept on delaying the decision for being
discharged. He was not making payments for his medical
bills. He had kept on assuring the hospital that he will clear
all the medical bills but kept on paying small amounts and
promising balance of payment soon.
6. It is submitted that on 13.02.2015, the police officials at
PS Kalanaur, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana had informed the
Hospital that the hospital may inform the SHO, Kalanaur
Police Station, Rohtak, whenever the Hospital discharges
this patient. ....... .
7. Subsequently, the Police official from Kalanaur Police
Station, Rohtak vi de his communication dated 15.03.2015
inter alia, requesting the Hospital to opine whether this
patient can be produced in the Court ofLd. ADJ, Rohtak.
8. In response to his communication dated 15.03.2015 of
the Rohtak Police, the Hospital had clearly informed them
on 16.3.2015 that the patient Mr. Balbir Singh is fit to be
produced in the Court. The further details of his treatment
in the Hospital with a Certificate were also issued on
26.03.2015 ......... The police officials from Rohtak by his
communication dated 1.5 .15 had requested the Hospital to
issue a discharge slip. While respectfully reiterating that
from 15.3.15 itself the police officials of Rohtak Police had
been clearly told by the Hospital that this patient is fit to be
taken to the Court where he is required, the Hospital once
again acceded to the request of the Rohtak Police and also
issued a Discharge Slip on the same day, i.e.,
01.05.2015 ............ "
The affidavit went on to state that the Hospital was not aware of
any direction to the respondent to surrender to custody which he had not
complied with and that the respondent had cleverly continued to stay in
the Hospital.
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
997
8. Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak filed his
A
affidavit dated 02.07.2015 in which developments subsequent to the filing
of the earlier affidavit were detailed in paragraphs 6 to 13:-
"6. It is further submitted that on 21.02.2015, the S.H.O.
Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana along with
other police officials of the Police Station went to the above
said hospital to arrest accused Balbir@ Bali but doctors of
the above said hospital refused to discharge the accused
Balbir@Bali. In this regard DD Rs No.9 and No.38 dated
21.02.2015 were recorded by the SHO Police Station
Kalanaur, Rohtak, Haryana.
7. That it is pertinent to mention here that on 21.02.2015,
27.02.2015 and 25.03.2015 Sh. Pawan Kumar, HPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak had also telephonically
contacted Mr: R. N. Sharma, Administrative Officer and
Dr. Prabhakar, Medical Director of the said hospital and
requested them to discharge the accused Balbir@ Bali but
no positive response was provided by the hospital authorities.
8. That accused Balbir@Bali through his counsel served
a legal notice dated 20.03.2015 upon SHO Police Station
Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana and Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, Haryana (Supervisory
Officer of Police Statfon Kalanaur) calling upon them not
to harass him, who is a patient and further, if any harassment
is caused they shall be personally responsible for the same.
In the said notice it was mentioned that accused Balbir@
Bali, who was under regular treatment and was unable to
appear in the court, was being unnecessarily harassed by
the police.
9.
That on 25.03.2015, the S.H.O, of Police Station
Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana along with other police
officials of the Police Station had gone to Privat Hospital
Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd., Phase-II, M.G Road, Gurgaon to
arrest accused Balbir@ Bali who was declared Proclaimed
Offender in case FIR No.141 dated 06.05.2011 under
Sections 148/149/323/325/307/302/109/114 IPC & 25 of
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
998
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
Anns Act, Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana
but the doctors of the said hospital again refused to discharge
accused Balbir@ Bali under the pretext that his treatment
was going on and intimation shall be given within two days
after completing his treatment. The S.H.0., Police Station
Kalanaur, District Rohtak before going and after returning
recorded the DDR No.12 dated 25.03.2015 at 8.20 AM
and DDR No.42 at I 0.20 PM mentioning all these details
therein at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak,
Haryana.
10. That notwithstanding the issuance of medical certificate
dated 26.3.2015 by Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd.
Gurgaon, Haryana, the concerned hospital authorities
intentionally did not discharge the accused Balbir@ Bali
from the hospital for reasons known to them. It is further
mentioned that the doctors of the said hospital orally advised
the police not to arrest the accused as it may put his life in
jeopardy/or danger.
11. That owing to the prevarication on part of authorities
of Privat Hospital, a request was made to the ChiefMedical
Officer (CMO), Gurgaon, Haryana by the S.H.0. Police
Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana through AS!
Mahabir Singh No.222/RTK of the said Police Station for
constituting a Medical Board to give opinion whether the
accused Balbir@ Bali who is getting treatment in the said
hospital can be arrested from the hospital in the said situation
by getting his physical condition and if not, then to provide
the medical team of Doctors to accompany the police for
bringing him to Rohtak so that he may be produced before
the learned Court in the supervision of Doctors.
_ That the authorities of Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev
Pvt. l td. Gurgaon failed to formally discharge the accused
Balbir@ Bali from the hospital despite several visits of the
local police. Due to non-cooperation of Privat Hospital
authorities, accused Balbir@ Bali could not be taken into
custody despite an Order of arrest. It is further submitted
that the Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon also refused t.o
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
provide an Ambulance and team of Doctors in whose
supervision accused Balbir@ Bali i.e. respondent No.1 could
be brought to Rohtak and produced before the learned Court
of concerned Magistrate, Rohtak. The local police tried its
level best to arrest the accused by making sincere efforts
but due to the above said circumstances, it could not succeed
in arresting accused Balbir@ Bali i.e. respondent No. I.
13. That on 01.05.2015, accused Balbir@Bali was formally
discharged by the hospital authorities and thereafter, he was
immediately arrested and produced before the learned Court
of concerned Magistrate, Rohtak, Haryana, on very same
day by a team of police officials headed by Sh. Pawan
Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. The
learned Court issued direction to the police that "before
taking him to central jail, accused shall be medico legally
examined and ifthe Medical officer examing the accused
feels any necessity of retaining him in the hospital, then it is
for him to decide. In compliance of Order dated 01.05.2015
passed by the learned Court of ACJM, Rohtak, the accused
was brought before Medical Officer of PGIMS, Rohtak,
who after examining the accused admitted him in ICCU
vide CR No.342761 dated 01.05.2015 for evaluation,
investigation, treatment and monitoring. The accused Balbir
@ Bali remained admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak from
01.05.2015 to 12.05.2015. That on 12.05.2015, accused
Balbir@ Bali was discharged from PGIMS, Rohtak and is
since in District Jail, Rohtak, Haryana."
9. The matter was thereafter taken up on 08.07.2015 when this
Court, with a view to find out whether the Hospital had become party to
attempts of the respondent to prevent the law from taking its course,
passed following Order:-
" ......... From the versions presented to us about the
circumstances in which respondent-Balbir continued to
evade arrest by the police on account of his prolonged
admission to the hospital, we are prima facie of the view
that an appropriate enquiry is called for in order to bring the
truth to light especially with a view to finding out whether
the hospital had become a privy to the attempt of the
999
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1000
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
respondent to somehow prevent the Jaw from taking its
course. The fact that the respondent remained admitted to
the hospital concerned for a Jong period without so much
as paying the amount claimed by the hospital shows that
the admission of the respondent to the hospital may not
have been an innocent act. We do not for the present wish
to say anything further at this stage lest it causes prejudice
to any party. All that we need mention is that, in our opinion,
the appropriate course would be to direct a proper inquiry
into the circumstances in which the respondent-Balbir
continued to avoid arrest and escape from the long arms of
law with or without the help of the hospital concerned.
We accordingly direct the Director of Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) to suitably nominate a seniorofficerto
conduct an inquiry into the circumstances in which the
respondent was admitted to the Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev
Pvt. Ltd. and also to report whether there was any criminality
attached to the action of the management of the hospital or
on the part of the doctors concerned in granting a prolonged
admission to the respondent with the object of protecting
the respondent from being arrested and committed to jail.
We hope and trust the officer concerned completes the
inquiry expeditiously and submits a report tmhis Court within
a period of two months from today ........ "
10. An enquiry was accordingly conducted by Shri S.S. Ki shore,
Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi. In his report dated 18.09.2015
he summarized the matter as under:-
"( 4). Summary of the Enquiry Report is as follows:
(a)
Accused Balbir Singh is a heart patient and had
undergone a treatment at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon as
an indoor patient from 4.9.2013 to 10.9.2013 and as an
G
outdoor patient on 17.9.2013 and 18.10.2013 i.e. prior to
cancellation of his bail by this Hon'ble Court.
(b) After this Hon 'ble Court cancelled the bail of accused
Balbir Singh on 24. l 0.2013, the accused got himself admitted
in the said Hospital on 15.11.2013.
H
(c) Accused Balbir singh remained admitted in the said
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
Hospital for a total 527 days on three occasions viz. from
15.11.2013 to 25.12.2013 for 41 days, from 31.12.2013 to
9.04.2014 for 100 days and from 11.04.2014 to 1.05.2015
for 386 days, respectively.
(d)
Accused Balbir Singh did not give his consent for
Angiography as suggested by the doctors during his
admission in the said Hospital, and requested for
Conservative Treatment through medicines which was
agreed to by the doctors.
(e)
Accused Balbir Singh was not required to remain
admitted in the said Hospital for such a long period for the
Conservative Treatment which he was given in said Hospital
as confirmed by Dr. Munish Prabhakar, the Consultant
Physician of the said Hospital.
(f)
There was no change in the condition of accused
Balbir Singh from 12.06.2014 to 1.12.2014 necessitating him
to be kept as indoor patient as is evident from the table
given at Para 3 (ii) (c) at Page No.5 of this Enquiry Report,
still he was kept in the said Hospital for no reason.
(g) No laboratory tests were conducted during the period
from 25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from 12.04.2014 to
01.5.2015 which indicate that neither illness of accused
Balbir Singh was serious nor treatment given to him was
intensive.
(h)
There was no cogent ground for which accused
Balbir Singh was allowed to move out of the said Hospital
for 4 7 times during the admission in the said Hospital. Rather
it establishes that he was fit to move freely and was not
required to be kept as indoor patient.
(i)
There was no justification for the continued admission
of accused Balbir Singh in the said Hospital from 11.04.2014
to 1.05.2015 i.e. for 386 days.
(j) Accused Balbir Singh remained admitted in the said
Hospital without any payment forthe first 274 days during
his third admission as he was admitted in the said Hospital
on 11.04.2014 and hemade the first payment of Rs. 50,000/-
1001
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
A
only on 10.01.2015.
B
c
D
(k) The administration of said Hospital kept the accused
admitted for financial gains as they were getting
approximately Rs. 9,500/- per day.
(I) Accused Balbir Singh made full payment of his first
and second admission bills in said Hospital, but paid only a
part of his dues for his third admission bills.
(m) Filing of complaint case against accused Balbir Singh
in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, I" Class, Gurgaon u/s
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 20.07.2015 for
dishonour of cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- and filing of a suit
against accused Balbir Singh on 13.08.2015 in the Court of
Civil Judge, Gurgaon for recovery of remaining bill
amounting to Rs. 29,58,459/-(Twenty Nine Lakh Fifty Eight
Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Nine) appear to be
afterthoughts of the administration of the said Hospital as
these have been filed after the Order dated 8.07.2015 of
this Hon'ble Court.
(n) The said Hospital on more than one occasion informed
Rohtak Police in writing that accused Balbir Singh was fit
E
to be taken to Court but did not discharge him.
(o)
It appears that Rohtak Police came to know about
accused Balbir Singh being admitted in the said Hospital on
8.02.2015, but arrested the accused only on 1.05.2015.
(p) The stand ofRohtak Police that accused could not be
F
arrested as he was not discharged by the said Hospital does
not hold substance.
G
H
( q) Certain inconsistencies have been found in the affidavit
filed by Rohtak Police. The details are mentioned in Para 3
(x) at Page Nos. 12 and 13 of this Enquiry Report."
11. The Enquiry Report also dealt with the efforts made by local
police to locate and arrest the respondent and reported as under:-
"( viii). NBWs and Efforts made by local police to locate
and arrest accused Balbir Singh
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
This Hon'ble Court had rejected the bail of
accused B:~}bir Singh on 24.10.2013 and directed him to
surrender L~hwith. Accused Balbir Singh did not comply
with the Order of this Hon'ble Court.