SITA RAM Vs. BALBIR @ BALI
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Contempt Petition (Civil), 374 of 2014, Judgment Date: Dec 15, 2016
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.374 OF 2014
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1834 OF 2013
Sita Ram ……Petitioner
Versus
Balbir @ Bali …. Respondent
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit J.
This petition under Section 12 of 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 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 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.1 fired upon his brother-in-law Vishnu from his revolver and thereafter
Sombir also fired upon Vishnu. The other persons mentioned also opened
fire indiscriminately leading to firearm injuries on several persons who
were at the shop of the Appellant/Informant at that fateful time.
……………………………….
5. ………………………. Respondent No.1 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 Addl. 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 IPC against all the accused and in addition to this a
prima facie case under Section 302 IPC, 109 IPC and 25 of Arms Act against
Balbir @ Bali, a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC 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.1 in the alleged crimes. Moreover,
the antecedents of Respondent No.1 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.1 who shall surrender to custody forthwith.”
3. Thus, while setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court 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 of consequential
non-bailable warrants issued from time to time leading to delays in trial.
The Orders passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013, 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 of India in this case and
further more bail of accused-applicant Balwan had already been cancelled by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, 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 Balwan in view of the Order dated 24.10.2013 as passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, 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
“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. Chugh, Advocate…………………………
Warrant of arrest of accused Balwan received back unexecuted. Now fresh
warrant of arrest of accused Balwan be issued through SP Rohtak for
15.03.2014. Notice to surety and identifier of accused Balwan alias Bali
be also issued for the date fixed.”
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’ble Apex 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 @ 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.10,000/- 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 record 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 following Order on 19.01.2015:
“In the present contempt petition also the respondent has failed to enter
appearance despite service of a notice issued 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.1 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.1 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 the statement made by Amit Kumar son of the respondent regarding
admission of respondent No.1 in the hospital is factually correct and to
file a report before this Court regarding his medical condition if he is
indeed admitted to the hospital anywhere in the State of Haryana”.
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 the respondent
in custody upon his discharge. The Medical Certificate dated 07.02.2015
was annexed to the affidavit and the Certificate reads 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
With COPD and Acute Examination
With Anxiety with Acid Peptic Disorder
And GIRD.
He has improved significantly, symptomatically and no intervention
was done during the hospitalization. He is likely to be discharged in next
5-7 days…….”
6. The matter was taken up on 24.04.2015 when the Counsel for the State
produced copies of Medical Certificates dated 11.04.2014 and 26.03.2015.
The Certificate dated 26.03.2015 stated that the respondent was fit to be
produced in a Court of Law but it did not indicate whether 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
medical 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:
Respondent No.1 has not been taken into custody despite an order of arrest
and medical certificate dated 26th March, 2015 issued by the hospital which
declares him asymptomatic.
The hospital has not formally discharged respondent No.1 if he is otherwise
fit and does not require any further hospitalization.
The Medical Director shall also place on record details about the medical
bills raised against respondent No.1 from the date of his admission till
date and the amount paid towards the same by the patient or anyone on his
behalf.
7. Pursuant to the Order dated 24.04.2015 an affidavit was filed by Dr.
Munish Prabhakar, Medical Director, Privat Hospital, Gurgaon on 02.07.2015.
Relevant portions of paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit were as
under:-
“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 vide his communication dated 15.03.2015 inter alia, requesting the
Hospital to opine whether this patient can be produced in the Court of Ld.
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.
8. Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak filed his 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 DDRs 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 Station 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 Arms 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.O., 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 10.20 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 Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Gurgaon,
Haryana by the S.H.O. Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana
through ASI 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.
12. That the authorities of Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd. 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 to 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.1.
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 medicolegally examined and if the 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 respondent to somehow prevent the law from
taking its course. The fact that the respondent remained admitted to the
hospital concerned for a long 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 senior officer to 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 to this Court within a period of
two months from today…….. ”
10. An enquiry was accordingly conducted by Shri S.S. Kishore,
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:
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 outdoor patient on 17.9.2013 and 18.10.2013 i.e. prior to
cancellation of his bail by this Hon’ble Court.
After this Hon’ble Court cancelled the bail of accused Balbir Singh on
24.10.2013, the accused got himself admitted in the said Hospital on
15.11.2013.
Accused Balbir singh remained admitted in the said 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There was no cogent ground for which accused Balbir Singh was allowed to
move out of the said Hospital for 47 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.
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.
Accused Balbir Singh remained admitted in the said Hospital without any
payment for the first 274 days during his third admission as he was
admitted in the said Hospital on 11.04.2014 and he made the first payment
of Rs. 50,000/- only on 10.01.2015.
The administration of said Hospital kept the accused admitted for financial
gains as they were getting approximately Rs. 9,500/- per day.
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.
Filing of complaint case against accused Balbir Singh in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, 1st 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.
The said Hospital on more than one occasion informed Rohtak Police in
writing that accused Balbir Singh was fit to be taken to Court but did not
discharge him.
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.
The stand of Rohtak Police that accused could not be arrested as he was not
discharged by the said Hospital does not hold substance.
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
This Hon’ble Court had rejected the bail of accused Balbir
Singh on 24.10.2013 and directed him to surrender forthwith. Accused Balbir
Singh did not comply with the Order of this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the
Trial Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, Haryana issued various
non-bailable warrants of arrest against accused Balbir Singh on 08.11.2013,
21.11.2013, 02.01.2014, 12.2.2014, 19.03.2014, 18.04.2014 and 15.05.2014
which were returned unexecuted by PS Kalanaur. None of the execution report
mentioned about any enquiry from family members of the accused or his
whereabouts. It was also revealed that some of the entries made in the
General Diaries of PS Kalanaur in connection with the efforts for arresting
the accused Balbir Singh do not correspond with the respective log books of
vehicles.”
12. After considering the Enquiry Report, this Court was prima facie of
the opinion, that notice was required to be issued to Dr. K.S. Sachdev, why
he should not be punished for committing contempt of court. The Order dated
19.11.2015 passed by this Court dealt with the matter as under:-
“………………We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the
view that a notice of show cause ought to issue even to Dr. K.S. Sachdev
who happens to be the Managing Director of Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev
Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. A notice shall accordingly issue asking Dr. K.S.
Sachdev to show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt
of this Court in as much as from the material placed on record, it appears
that Balbir Singh accused in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2011 was harboured by
the Hospital run by the Company of which he is the Managing Director for a
considerable period and prima facie without any justification and only with
a view to preventing his arrest and committal to jail pursuant to the
Orders passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2013 the Orders
passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2013 dated 24.10.2013.
Notice shall be directed to the Station House Officer to the Jurisdictional
Police Station for service upon Dr. K.S. Sachdev.
………………. Mr. Shashank Anand, S.P. shall also file his reply affidavit
to the contempt petition as also the preliminary report within three weeks
from today with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner who
will have one week thereafter to respond to the same.”
13. Accordingly, Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak filed
his affidavit dated 07.12.2015 submitting that he took charge as
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak on 24.11.2014. He stated that the fact
that the respondent had not surrendered despite cancellation of his bail by
this Court was brought to his knowledge for the first time on 12.01.2015,
whereafter the matter was entrusted to Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Meham, Rohtak. He further stated that he became aware of the admission of
the respondent in Privat Hospital, Gurgaon on 16.02.2015. He thereafter
undertook steps to ensure that the respondent did not escape and deployed a
guard at the hospital since 16.02.2015 right till 01.05.2015 when the
respondent was finally discharged from the hospital. The affidavit further
stated that soon after the enquiry report of CBI a fact finding probe to
fix the responsibility/negligence/ connivance on part of police officials
who dealt with process of service of non-bailable warrant against the
respondent was undertaken. Pursuant to the enquiry report dated
07.12.2015, vide Memo Nos.2145, 2146, 2147 and 2148 all dated 07.12.2015,
necessary action was recommended against certain police officials.
14. A reply affidavit was also filed by Dr. K.S. Sachdev on 07.01.2016.
It was submitted that the hospital came to know that the respondent was
required in a criminal case only on 13.02.2015. However, the affidavit did
not disclose why even after 13.02.2015 the respondent-contemnor was not
discharged. The affidavit stated that after it received a communication
from Rohtak Police dated 15.03.2015 to get the respondent examined by a
Medical Board, that the hospital on 16.03.2015 furnished a fitness report
to Rohtak Police declaring the respondent to be fit to be produced in court
of law. The affidavit further stated that for reasons best known to them
the police did not take the respondent from the hospital despite such
fitness report and the respondent was finally discharged after letter dated
01.05.2015 seeking his discharge was received from the police. The
affidavit stated that no police official came to the hospital seeking
custody of the respondent and that the hospital had not refused to comply
with the request of the police at any stage. It further stated:
“The prolonged admission happened as the accused trapped the Hospital by
not paying. There was no criminality on part of hospital as it was totally
unaware of his criminal status before 13.02.2015. The hospital did not
keep him as he was paying Rs.9,500/- to the hospital, it was non- payment
of this amount that gave him prolonged stay and he very cleverly used this
position that for the fear of losing money, the hospital will not discharge
him and he trapped the hospital very cleverly being a wily politician.”
15. We heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.
Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Shashank
Anand, Superintendent of Police, Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned Senior
Advocate for Dr. K.S. Sachdev and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior
Advocate for Dr. Munish Prabhakar.
16. From the record and the Enquiry Report as stated above, it is clear
that soon after the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court, the
respondent remained admitted in the Hospital for a total of 527 days.
Nothing has been placed on record, nor any medical condition or 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 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 in its Order dated
24.10.2013 and repeated non-bailable warrants issued by the Trial Court.
17. The Order passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013 shows that an
affidavit of son of the respondent was filed along with a copy of review
petition. The application seeking exemption was rejected by the Trial
Court and SHO concerned was issued notice why the warrant 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 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 as by the Trial Court. This callous attitude and
conduct of the police calls for strict administrative actions and
corrective penal measures.
18. 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. Having
gone through the record and considered the Enquiry Report, we have no doubt
that 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.
19. We now turn to the role of the hospital and medical professionals.
The explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev was
that they were not aware of any direction by this Court to the respondent
to surrender to custody or that the respondent was required in connection
with any crime. At the outset, it must be stated that the respondent stood
admitted in the hospital for 527 days. Not a single laboratory test was
conducted during the period from 15.02.2014 to 01.05.2015. The papers
produced on record do not in any way suggest any medical emergency which
could justify continued admission of the respondent as an indoor patient.
Further, 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 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 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
admission in the hospital as an indoor patient. The role of the hospital
was certainly not as innocent as is sought to be projected and the features
detailed above clearly show that the hospital was party to the attempts on
part of the respondent to defeat the Order passed by this Court.
20. When the compliance report forwarded by the District Judge, Rohtak on
15.01.2015 indicated admission of the respondent in a hospital, this Court
by Order dated 19.01.2015 called for a report from the Superintendent of
Police, Rohtak. The enquiry initiated thereafter resulted in recording of
the statement of son of the respondent on 08.02.2015 who also produced
medical certificate dated 07.02.2015. This certificate issued by Privat
Hospital shows that the respondent was likely to be discharged in next 5 to
7 days. Significantly, said certificate was not even referred to in any of
the subsequent affidavits filed by Dr. Munish Prabhakar or Dr. K.S.
Sachdev. If the respondent was likely to be discharged in few days as
certified on 07.02.2015 what went wrong in not discharging him or was there
any medical emergency justifying his continued admission? Nothing is spelt
out in any of the affidavits. As a matter of fact, the subsequent
certificate dated 26.03.2015 did not even speak of likelihood of discharge
and used the expression “………he is fit to be produced in the Court of law as
per present health condition.” The assertions made by Shashank Anand in
his affidavit dated 02.07.2015 are that notwithstanding issuance of such
certificate dated 26.03.2015, the hospital refused to discharge the
respondent and orally advised the police not to arrest the respondent lest
it may put his life in jeopardy or danger. The Enquiry Report rightly
observed “……the said hospital on more than one occasion informed Rohtak
Police in writing that accused Balbir Singh was fit to be taken to court
but did not discharge him.” It was only after this Court passed the Order
dated 24.04.2015 directing personal presence of Dr. Munish Prabhakar with a
direction to file an affidavit and explain the situation, that the hospital
discharged the respondent on 01.05.2015 which then resulted in arrest and
production of the respondent.
21. The explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. Sachdev 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 07.02.2015 and if that
certificate was a correct one, the time was ripe for discharge of the
respondent. However, as stated by Shashank Anand in his affidavit dated
02.07.2015, the hospital refused to discharge the respondent. The theory
that the hospital was trapped by the designs of the respondent is a mere
eye-wash and we reject the same. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that
the hospital extended protection and asylum to the respondent to defeat the
Order passed by this Court as well as those passed by the Trial Court and
thereby obstructed administration of justice.
22. Dr. Munish Prabhakar has been Medical Director of the hospital and as
submitted by learned Senior Counsel on his behalf, he receives salary and
some percentage of consultation charges recovered from the patients. Dr.
K.S. Sachdev, on the other hand, has been the Managing Director of the
Company which owns and runs said hospital. We have found that 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 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 helped
the respondent in violating the Order of this court but they also
obstructed administration of justice.
23. The aforementioned conclusions then raise issues regarding the extent
of liability of the contemnors. Sections 2 (b) and 2 (c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 which define ‘civil contempt’ and ‘criminal contempt’ are
as under:-
“(b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an
undertaking given to a court;
(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any
matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the
authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course
of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”
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 court
stands established. Further, by his defiance of the direction so issued, he
also obstructed administration of justice. He is thus liable for committing
civil contempt as well as criminal contempt. But the Medical Professionals
namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev were not parties to the
matter where the direction in question was passed.
24. As regards the liability of the aforesaid Medical Professionals,
questions that arise are: 1) whether a person, who is not 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.
A.] In Seaward v. Paterson[1] the landlord of the concerned premises had
obtained an injunction against Paterson i.e. his tenant restraining him
from doing or allowing to be done anything on the premises which would be a
nuisance to the landlord and from using the premises otherwise than for the
purposes of a private club. Alleging that the tenant had committed
contempt of the court by allowing the premises to be used for boxing
matches, the landlord applied for committal of two other persons, namely,
Sheppard and Murray on the ground that they had aided and assisted the
tenant in his disobedience to the injunction. The following passages from
the Judgment of Lindley LJ are quite instructive:
“Now, Let us consider what jurisdiction the court has to make an order
against Murray. There is no injunction against him-- He is no more bound
by the injunction granted against Paterson than any other member of the
public. He is bound, like other members of the public, not to interfere
with, and not to obstruct, the course of justice; and the case, if any,
made against him must be this--not that he has technically infringed the
injunction, which was not granted against him in any sense of the word, but
that he has been aiding and abetting others in setting the Court at
defiance, and deliberately treating the order of the Court as unworthy of
notice. If he has so conducted himself, it is perfectly idle to say that
there is no jurisdiction to commit him for contempt as distinguished from a
breach of the injunction, which has a technical meaning.”
“A motion to commit a man for breach of an injunction, which is technically
wrong unless he is bound by the injunction, is one thing; and a motion to
commit a man for contempt of court, not because he is bound by the
injunction by being party to the cause, but because he is conducting
himself so as to obstruct the course of justice, is another and a totally
different thing. The difference is very marked. In the one case the party
who is bound by the injunction is proceeded against for the purpose of
enforcing the Order of the Court for the benefit of the person who got it.
In the other case, the Court will not allow its process to be set at naught
and treated with contempt.”
B] In Z Ltd. v. A[2] the plaintiff had obtained injunction against
certain defendants and the assets of one such defendant against whom the
injunction was granted, were held by a bank. The bank was served with a
copy of the injunction but the concerned defendant had not yet been served.
While considering the question whether any disposal of assets belonging to
the defendant by the bank would make it liable for committing contempt of
Court, it was stated as under:
“I think that the following propositions may be stated as to the
consequences which ensue when there are acts or omissions which are
contrary to the terms of injunction. (1) The person against whom the Order
is made will be liable for contempt of Court if he acts in breach of the
Order after having notice of it. (2) A third party will also be liable if
he knowingly assists in the breach, that is to say if knowing the terms of
the injunction he willfully assists the person to whom it was directed to
disobey it. This will be so whether or not the person enjoined has had
notice of the injunction… I will give my reasons for the second proposition
and take first the question of prior notice to the defendant. It was argued
that the liability of the third person arose because he was treated as
aiding and abetting the defendant (i.e. was an accessory) and as the
defendant could himself not be in breach unless he had notice it followed
that there was no offence to which the third party could be an accessory.
In my opinion this argument misunderstands the true nature of the liability
of the third party. He is liable for contempt of court committed by
himself. It is true that his conduct may very often be seen as possessing a
dual character of contempt of court by himself and aiding and abetting the
contempt by another, but the conduct will always amount to contempt by
himself. It will be conduct which knowingly interferes with the
administration of justice by causing the Order of the court to be
thwarted.”
C] The extent of liability of third party in such actions was considered
by the House of Lords in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and
another[3]. In that case the Attorney General had brought action against
two newspapers seeking permanent injunction restraining them from
publishing material from a book written by a person who was formerly a
member of the security service and by terms of his employment was bound by
confidentiality which would stand breached if his memoirs were published.
While the interlocutory injunctions restraining publication of the material
pending trial of such action was granted against those two newspapers,
three other newspapers published extensive extracts and summaries of the
book following which proceedings for criminal contempt against them were
brought by the Attorney General. At the trial of those proceedings those
three other newspapers were held to be guilty of criminal contempt. Lord
Brandon of Oakbrook concluded as under:
“………………The claims of the Attorney General in the confidentiality actions
were for permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from publishing
what may conveniently be called Spycatcher material. The purpose of the
Millet injunctions was to prevent the publication of any such material
pending the trial of the confidentiality actions. The consequence of the
publication of Spycatcher material by the publishers and editor of the
Sunday Times before the trial of the confidentiality actions was to
nullify, in part at least, the purpose of such trial because it put into
the public domain part of the material which it was claimed by the Attorney
General in the confidentiality actions ought to remain confidential. It
follows that the conduct of the publishers and editor of the Sunday Times
constituted the actus reus of impeding or interfering with the
administation of justice by the court in the confidentiality actions.”
D] In a separate concurring opinion Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle stated
as under:
“I turn to consider whether there is any reason why established principle
should not be applied to the situation in this case. I do not accept the
propostion that to apply established principles in the foregoing
circumstances would effectively be to convert every injuction from an order
in personam to an order contra mundum. That proposition ignores the
distinction between the breach of an order by the person named therein and
interference with the course of justice resulting from a frustration of the
order by the third party.”
25. In our view, the Medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and
Dr. K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to 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, as stated above and thereby aided and
assisted the respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such
conduct these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of
justice.
26. We thus hold that the respondent guilty of having violated the Order
dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court and for having obstructed
administration of justice. We also hold Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S.
Sachdev guilty for having helped the respondent in his attempts and thereby
obstructing administration of justice. Having held so, we could
straightaway have imposed appropriate punishment under the Act. However, we
deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to these contemnors. The
respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered an apology. At the same
time for Dr. K.S. Sachdev, Managing Director of the company that owns the
hospital is said to be 76 years of age. Considering the fact that these are
medical professionals with sufficient standing, in our view 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, we direct presence
of these three contemnors on January 2, 2017. The respondent is in custody
and therefore appropriate production warrant shall be issued under the
signature of Registrar of this Court ensuring presence of the respondent
before this Court. The concerned police is directed to facilitate such
production of the respondent. The contemnors can also present their views
and make appropriate submission in writing on or before December 23, 2016.
27. Coming to the role of the police officials in the present matter, we
have already observed that 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 actions in that behalf
have already been initiated and for the present we rest content by
observing that the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken to logical end
and the guilty shall be brought to book. We request the Director General of
Police of Haryana and the Home Secretary to look into the matter and ensure
that the departmental proceedings are taken to logical end at the earliest.
The status report/action taken report in that behalf shall be filed in this
court within three months from the date of this judgment.
28. As regards the role of Mr. Shanshank Anand, Superintendent of Police,
Rohtak, we find that he took charge as Superintendent of Police, Rohtak on
24.11.2014 i.e. 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 Privat
Hospital, Gurgaon only in February 2015, the steps that he took after
16.2.2015 cannot strictly be called actions taken with reasonable
promptitude. Even according to Paras 6, 7 and 8 of affidavit dated
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 we express dissatisfaction, we do not deem it
appropriate to carry the matter further as against him. The notice issued
to him is discharged and the petition as against him stands closed.
29. Ordered accordingly.
…………………CJI.
(T.S. Thakur)
…………………….J.
(R. Banumathi)
…………………….J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
December 15, 2016
-----------------------
[1] (1895-99) All ER 1127
[2] (1982) 1 All ER 556
[3] (1991) 2 All ER 398
For the Latest Updates
Join Now