Skill scam: AP High Court grants four-week conditional interim bail to Chandrababu Naidu
Naidu was arrested on September 9 from the RK function hall in Nandyal. He was jailed in Rajamahendravaram Central Prison since then in a special barrack
AMARAVATI: Considering the health condition of skill scam accused former Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday granted him interim bail for four weeks in the skill development scam case.
However, the Court did not mention the conditions on which the bail was granted. Naidu was arrested on September 9 from the RK function hall in Nandyal. He was jailed in Rajamahendravaram Central Prison since then in a special barrack.
However, a known person suffering psoriasis he developed serious skin condition inside the jail following which his family demanded that he be released to seek better treatment outside the jail.
The accused must surrender before the court on November 24, and the hearing on the main bail petition will take place on November 10. The judge made it clear that the accused out on bail must not participate in any event other than attending a hospital for treatment. He must not speak over a phone, should not address the media and should not participate in any political activity.
COMMON ORDER:-
1. I.A. No. 01 of 2023 and I.A. No. 03 of 2023 have been filed
under Sections 437 and 439 r/w. Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). These applications pertain to Crime
No. 29 of 2021 of C.I.D., Police Station, A.P., Amaravati. The
petitioner has filed these applications, in conjunction with the
main Criminal Petition No. 7951 of 2023, seeking interim bail to
facilitate the undertaking of necessary medical tests and
treatment under the supervision of his personal physician.
2. The case of the petitioner, is that, a case was registered
against him vide Crime No.29 of 2021 under Sections 166, 167,
418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 r/w. Section 120-B of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”) and sections
13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for
short, “P.C. Act”) by C.I.D. Police Station, Mangalagiri. He was
detained on 08.09.2023 at 11 P.M. and was arrested on
09.09.2023 at 6 A.M. for the aforesaid crime. The petitioner is
an old person of 73 years of age, who, due to inadequate
medical supervision and lack of facilities in the Jail is facing
health complications on account of his continued incarceration.
Prior to his arrest, he was in continuous medical care of his
personal doctors, and he is not able to get medical management,
which he was getting since a long period. Due to which, the
health of the petitioner is deteriorating day by day and it could
become life threatening and beyond the realm of control by the
jail authorities.
(i) The petitioner has suffered from Erythematous Popular
Rash over his front chest, back palms and on intergluteal
region. The Medical Report dated 14.10.2023 submitted by
team of doctors after conducting medical examination of the
petitioner reveals that the petitioner is a known case of Diabetes
Mellitus from 15 years and is under continuous treatment and
also suggests that he is a known case of Hypertrophic
Obstructive Cardio Myopathy and was treated with cardiac
evaluation in December, 2022.
(ii) The medical report dated 17.10.2023 prepared by
Government doctors has advised to conduct following medical
tests of the petitioner; Complete Blood Picture, Renal Function
Test, Liver Function Tests, Serum Electrolytes, Coagulation
Profile, HbA1C, Complete Urine Examination, ECG, X-Ray,
Chest, 2d Echo. As such, the petitioner wishes to undertake the
above medical tests from the team of doctors of his own choice.
The above tests include the tests of vital organs like heart and
lungs. As such, the petitioner seeks for interim bail.
3. A counter filed by the Respondent/State, denying all the
allegations made in the petitions, contending that it is a settled
proposition of law that the Courts should look into the prima
facie case against the accused, the scope and gravity of the
alleged offence while granting bail/interim bail. As per the
conspiracy, the petitioner colluded with A.1, A.2, A.6, A.8 and
others; the Skill development project was specifically allotted on
a nomination basis with malafide intention of causing wrongful
gain to himself and others accused and caused wrongful loss to
the Government Exchequer. The gravity of the alleged offence,
prima-facie material being available against the petitioner, and
the need to examine the then Personal Secretary to the
petitioner/A.37, Mr Pendyala Srinivas, Mr Manoj Vasudev
Pardasany and Mr Kilaru Rajesh, a close associate of Nara
Lokesh and collection of Bank details about the petitioner. The
petitioner did not cooperate with the Jail authorities, persisting
with his stand of not undergoing any tests unless his family
Doctor was consulted. There was no response from Smt.
N. Bhuvaneswari for the two letters dated 16.10.2023 and
25.10.2023 about getting an opinion from their family doctor.
There is no truth in the averment that the delay in undertaking such a Cataract operation can have debilitating impacts on the
vision of the petitioner. A dedicated team of guarding staff are
monitoring the CCTV Surveillance System in the prison, and
they are constantly monitoring the petitioner's security.
4. Heard Sri Siddharth Luthra and Sri Dammalapati
Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner
and Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Additional
Advocate General, for the Respondent-State.
5. Now, the question to be decided at this stage is:
“Whether the petitioner/A.37, who is in custody, is
entitled to interim bail on medical grounds?
6. The Learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner, contends
that the petitioner is a 73-year-old individual who has been in
judicial custody since 10.09.2023. During his period of
incarceration, the petitioner has faced difficulties in accessing
necessary medical care, resulting in an Erthematous Popular
Rash affecting his chest, back, palms, and intergluteal region.
To substantiate this claim, reference is made to a medical report
dated 14.10.2023, which was provided by a team of Government
Doctors.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further
contends that it is not disputed that the petitioner has been
diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus for a period of 15 years and has been receiving consistent medical care for this condition.
Furthermore, the petitioner has a known case of Hypertrophic
Obstructive Cardiomyopathy, for which cardiac evaluation was
conducted in December 2022. A medical report dated
21.10.2023 recommends that the petitioner undergo a series of
tests, including assessments of vital organs such as the heart
and lungs.
8. Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Additional
Advocate General, contends that there is no justifiable reason
for granting interim bail as the petitioner's condition remains
stable. Additionally, he contends that the petitioner's medical
conditions are not severe, and he is receiving the necessary
medical care within the prison premises and that the
petitioner's weight has increased from 66 Kgs to 67.5 Kgs.
Therefore, it is requested that the interim bail application be
dismissed.
9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner argues that the petitioner underwent Cataract surgery
in June 2023. Due to an apparent disparity in the petitioner's
vision, it has been advised that he undergo Cataract surgery for
the right eye at the earliest, as any delay in this operation could
lead to a significant deterioration in his vision. To support this
claim, reference is made to a certificate issued by the LV Prasad Eye Institute, dated 21.10.2023. Wherein it is observed as
follows:
"The petitioner was reviewed on 25.03.2023. His
intraocular pressures were borderline, and he had a visually
significant cataract. He underwent Cataract extraction with
intraocular lens implantation in his left Eye on 21.06.2023,
under the cover of pressure-lowering medications. That Eye
recovered well in the next 3 weeks. However, there remained
a noticeable disparity in vision between his right and left
Eye, and hence was advised cataract surgery in the right Eye
within 3 months”.
10. Upon reviewing the mentioned certificate, it becomes
apparent that the petitioner is advised to undergo surgery within
three months from 21.06.2023, which differs from the
interpretation provided by the learned Additional Advocate
General, who cited 21.10.2023 as the relevant date for
consideration.
11. Dr P. Naveen Chander Reddy, MD, Consultant Physician,
Medical Director, A.I.G. Hospitals, issued a Certificate dated
11.10.2023 about the health condition of the petitioner, which
is as follows:
"Mr Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, aged 73 years, has been our
patient for a long time. He has the following health ailments –
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, Diabetes Mellitus and Skin disorder.
And on regular checkups and treatment with our team of doctors.
Given these cardiac and skin conditions, he's advised to keep
himself well hydrated and maintain a cold environment around him
since dehydration and a hot environment might precipitate cardiac
complications like arrhythmias or heart blocks. He might require a
checkup at our hospital if any of these ailments need to be addressed."
12. Dr B. Srinivasa Rao, Civil Surgeon Specialist, Government
Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, addressed a letter dated
25.10.2023 to the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison,
informing that on 25.10.2023 he examined the petitioner for an
eye checkup for a complaint of defective vision Right Eye and
stated as follows:
“On examination:
Left Eye – Pseudophakia
Right Eye – Immature Cataract with normal papillary reflexes.
Hence, the right Eye is also advised for IOL Surgery.”
13. On the same day, i.e. 25.10.2023, Dr. B. Srinivasa Rao,
addressed another letter to the Superintendent, clarifying that
the eye condition of the petitioner is not of a serious nature and
does not necessitate immediate surgery. Specifically it is
mentioned that the cataract in the right Eye is still in an
immature stage, and he can undergo IOL surgery at his
convenience. The two letters penned by the same Doctor to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, serve as a compelling
reminder to the Court as to what significance/importance has to be attached to the certificates issued by the Government
Doctors.
14. The learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner
argues that the petitioner is more susceptible to the
complications due to weight loss and ongoing health issues. In
response, the learned Additional Advocate General has relied on
medical records to dispute the claim that the petitioner has
experienced weight loss. It is further asserted that the petitioner
has actually gained more than 1.5 Kg, totaling 67.5 Kg.
15. The team of doctors (1) Dr Markandeyulu, MD Gen.
Medicine (2) Dr Ch.V.V. Siva Kumar, MS Gen. Surgery (3) Dr
Ch. V. Suneetha Devi, MD D.V.L. (4) Dr B.V.V.N. Mahendra, MD
Anaesthesia and (5) Dr S. Himaja, MD Pathology submitted a
report dated 19.10.2023, 20.10.2023, 21.10.2023, 23.10.2023
and 26.10.2023, wherein the petitioner is advised the following
investigations:
“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.
”
16. The Respondent-State has relied these reports to argue
that the petitioner has been managing his health reasonably
well and is not afflicted by any chronic ailment. In a letter dated
26.10.2023, addressed from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram to Sri M. Dhanunjayudu, the
Investigation Officer, wherein it was conveyed that the Medical
Team, in their medical report, had recommended specific
investigations for the remand prisoner. Additionally, he
informed the Investigation Officer that all these recommended
investigations could be carried out within the facilities of the
Jail Hospital.
17. The learned Additional Advocate General placed on record
a G.O.Rt.No.683, dated 22.07.2022, wherein it is described as
follows:
"2. The Director General of Prisons and Correctional
Services, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, has given the details
of the issue and has framed certain guidelines for approval of
the Government and proposed to constitute a Committee for
each District with Chairman and 3 Members to study the
case of the Prisoner in-depth and decide whether the case is
genuine and the Prisoner is suffering from a life-threatening
disease and he requires treatment in a Network Hospital or
not and has requested the Government for issue of necessary
orders".
18. Based on the available material, it is evident that the
petitioner was recommended to undergo Cataract surgery for
the right eye within three months from 21.06.2023. This Court
views that it would be unreasonable for a prudent individual to
seek Cataract surgery solely for the purpose of obtaining bail. If
that is so, the petitioner need not have waited till 25.10.2023 to come up with this petition. Considering the petitioner's age, this
Court finds that it is quite probable to suffer from such old age
ailments. There is no material casting doubt on the authenticity
of the certificates relied on by the petitioner. In the second
report also, Dr. B. Srinivasa Rao did not state that the petitioner
need not require surgery. Consequently, this Court does not
find it necessary to compel the petitioner to appear before a
Medical Board, as suggested by the learned Additional Advocate
General.
19. The learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance
on a decision reported in State of U.P. vs. Gayatri Prasad
Prajapati1
. After going through the decision, this Court finds
that it cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as in
the said case the High Court has not referred and considered
the reports of the S.G.P.G.I.M.S., i.e. Super Specialty Hospital,
which was on the record as well as the report of the medical
board.
20. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Satyendar Kumar Jain
vs. Directorate of Enforcement2
, wherein it is observed that:
“2. The Additional Solicitor General representing the
Enforcement Directorate opposed such prayer and pressed for independent medical examination before the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences [A.I.I.M.S.].
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, there is no
reason to disbelieve the Report of G.B. Pant Institute of Post
Graduate Medical Education and Research. It is appropriate
that the citizen has a right to take treatment of his choice, at
his expense, in a private hospital.
21. Evidently, the petitioner herein preferred a Special Leave
Petition, seeking to quash the F.I.R. No.29 of 2021 registered by
C.I.D. P.S., A.P. Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, dated 09.12.2021, on
the ground that the same has been initiated without obtaining
sanction as mandated by Section 17-A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The learned Additional Advocate General argues
that in the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner had also
requested ex-parte ad-interim bail. So, the petitioner should
have refrained from seeking the same relief before this Court.
22. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner brought to
the notice of this Court the averments made in the interim bail
application, which reads as follows:
"The petitioner challenged the Order dated 22.09.2023
before Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P. (C.R.L.)
No:12289/2023. On 17.10.2023, the arguments of all the
parties were concluded and the judgment was reserved by
Hon'ble Supreme Court. That the petitioner has sought interim
relief in such petition also, however, the same has been
reserved for final orders now and in fact on the submissions
made across the bar in the Supreme Court, all the issues in relation to regular and interim bail (sans 17A P.C. Act), were
left to be agitated before this Hon'ble Court".
23. Taking into account the arguments put forth on behalf of
the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner's pursuit of a
Special Leave Petition to challenge the F.I.R. does not preclude
him from seeking bail from either the Special Court or the High
Court. It is nobody’s case that an application has been moved
on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim bail on the health
grounds and has been pending for consideration before the
Hon’ble Apex Court. This Court does not find merit in the
argument put forth by the learned Additional Advocate General,
which suggests that the petitioner's bail application should not
be considered until the quash petition is adjudicated.
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 India3
, 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.
26. This Court is of the opinion that there is no remote
possibility that the petitioner would evade the judicial process
or pose a flight risk. It has been submitted that the petitioner has strong ties within society and is a respected figure, having
previously served as the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and
currently holding the position of Opposition Leader and sitting
Member of the Legislative Assembly.
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.
29. With a humanitarian perspective in mind and considering
the petitioner's health condition, this Court is inclined to grant
temporary bail on health grounds to the petitioner/A.37,
enabling him to undergo the required surgery on his right eye.
30. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both petitions
are allowed; the petitioner/A.37 is entitled to interim bail on
medical grounds for Four (4) weeks from today, on the following
conditions:-
1) The petitioner shall furnish a bail bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
2) The petitioner shall get himself examined/treated at a
hospital of his choice at his expenses.
3) The petitioner shall provide the details about the
treatment given to him and the hospital where he got
treated, in a sealed cover, to the Superintendent, Central
Prison, Rajamahendravaram, at the time of his surrender,
who in turn, shall forward the sealed cover intact to the
trial Court.
4) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or any other authority.
5) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, on
or before 28.11.2023 at 5 P.M.