1. This application has been filed on behalf of accused-applicant, Anshuman Pandey for short-term-bail on medical grounds.
2. The applicant is an accused of an offence registered at Crime/FIR No.0416 of 2013, under Sections 307, 504, 201, 419, 420 and 471 IPC lodged at Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
3. In sum and substance, as per the FIR, the allegation against the accused-applicant is that complainant was employed on the post of Librarian in Satyanand Higher Education Institution, 5/585, Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, an institution run by the accused-applicant and, his family members; complainant's one month salary was due and, therefore, the complainant went to the house of the accused-applicant, Secretary of the Institution, for his salary. The accused-applicant took out his revolver and, with an intention to kill the complainant, fired 4 shots, which hit the complainant. This incident took place on 2nd September, 2019 at 12.30 p.m. and, the FIR got registered on the same day at 13.35 hours. The accused-applicant could successfully avoid his arrest for 7 long years and, he was arrested only on 27.06.2020. Despite despite process issued under Sections 82/83 CrPC, the accused-applicant did not surrender and remained absconding for all these years. This Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the criminal history of the accused-applicant of 5 cases rejected the regular bail of the accused-applicant vide order dated 06.10.2020 passed in Bail No. 6079 of 2020. The present application for short-term bail came to be filed on 16.12.2020 on medical grounds.
4. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2020 called for a report from the Jail Superintendent regarding the health condition of the accused-applicant. The order dated 16.12.2020 reads as under:-
"1. This application has been filed to grant short term bail to the accused-applicant on his health/medical ground.
2. Let a report be called for from the Jail Superintendent regarding the health condition of the accused-applicant.
3. Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. submits that the accused-applicant was involved in an incident regarding use of drug in which the accused-applicant and other inmate, Saeed bet each other.
4. D.I.G. Prison, Lucknow, Mr. Sanjeev Tripathi has conducted an enquiry and the enquiry report is also need to be produced before this Court with an affidavit.
5. List this case on 12.01.2021."
5. Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit dated 11.01.2021 on behalf of the State was filed. Along with the aforesaid affidavit, the medical report of provisional diagnosis from a team/board consisting of 4 specialist was placed along with inquiry report of Deputy Inspector General, Prison, Lucknow Range, Lucknow dated 04.12.2020.
6. It appears that some incident took place on 27.11.2020. Regarding this incident, the mother of the accused-applicant made a complain in writing on 02.12.2020 to the Director General of Police/Inspector General, Prison, Uttar Pradesh. The inquiry on the said complaint was entrusted to the Deputy Inspector General, Prison, Lucknow Range, Lucknow.
7. The Deputy Inspector General, Prison, Lucknow Range in his report has concluded that the accused-applicant was admitted in the District Jail, Lucknow on 19.07.2020. He was given medical treatment as an indoor-patient in Ward No. 1 of the Jail Hospital. On 22.11.2020, during search, some proscribed medicines/drugs were recovered from possession of the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was called for explanation by the Jail Administration. However, he became very aggressive and, therefore, minimal force was used to control him and, he was sent back to Ward No. 1 of Jail Hospital. The accused-applicant, in connivance with the medical staff of the Jail Hospital, got himself shifted to Ward No. 4 so that his illegal activities should not be brought to the notice of the Jail Administration in Ward No. 4, a secluded ward. When this fact came to the notice of the Jail Administration, he was again shifted to Ward No. 1. Dr. Satyendra Kumar of the Jail Hospital was involved in movement of the accused-applicant from Ward No. 1 to Ward No. 4.
8. The accused-applicant had good established support with the Doctors posted in Jail Hospital and, with their active support and connivance, he used to-do all things, which he wanted to do.
9. It is further said that the accused-applicant used to give money to one under-trial prisoner, Saeed, who was also receiving treatment in Ward No. 1. However, for the last 2-3 days before the incident dated 27.11.2020, he did not give money to Saeed and, therefore, on 28.11.2020, at around 9.30 Saeed attacked the accused-applicant with glucose-bottle-stand. The other accused, receiving treatment in the ward, such as, Deen Mohammad and Ram Ganesh intervened and defused the situation. When this information reached to the Jail Administration, prisoner, Saeed was shifted to Ward No. 2. The accused-applicant was treated in the Jail Hospital for the injuries received by him. The injuries found on the body of the accused-applicant were simple in nature.
10. Earlier, the accused-applicant was being treated in the Jail Hospital from 22.07.2020 to 08.08.2020 as an indoor-Patient and, thereafter, he was admitted in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow from 08.08.2020 to 13.10.2020. From 14.10.2020, he was receiving treatment in the Jail Hospital.
11. During his treatment at the Medical Institute, the accused-applicant posted photographs and, chatted with his facebook friends from which it is evident that even in jail, he was having mobile and using it illegally.
12. The accused-applicant, in his statement, had stated that the proscribed medicines/drugs, which were recovered from him, were bought by him when he was relived from the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow through the staff of the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. The accused-applicant and, co-accused, Saeed used to take drugs and, a large number of drugs were recovered from the accused-applicant on 27.11.2020.
13. Doctor Yunus, the Medical Officer, had accepted that he kept one strip of Alprazolam with him given by the accused-applicant to prisoner, Saeed and, it was not informed to the Jail Administration. 22 other medicines were recovered from the accused-applicant, which had not been prescribed for his treatment and, some of them were drugs. It was concluded that the accused-applicant had been using drugs and selling the same to other prisoners inside the jail in active connivance with the medical staff, including the Doctors.
14. On 12.01.2021, this Court passed the following order:-
"1. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2020, directed Superintendent District Jail, Lucknow to submit a report regarding medical health condition of the accused-applicant and further directed that the report of the DIG Prison, Lucknow regarding the enquiry conducted by him in respect of an incident involving the accused-applicant with a fellow prisoner, Saeed Ahmad to be placed on record.
2. In compliance of the aforesaid order, medical report of the prisoner along with the enquiry report conducted by the DIG Prison, Lucknow Range have been submitted with the affidavit of Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow.
3. The accused-applicant is presently admitted for his medical treatment in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow. A team of four doctors have examined the accused-applicant. The team includes Assit. Professor, Cardiology Department, Asst. Professor, Urology Department, Asst. Professor, Psychiatry Department and Senior Consultant, Medicine Department.
According to the report of Mr. Amresh Kumar Singh, Asst. Professor of Cardiology, the accused-applicant is suffering from Hypertension and Dyslipidemia and he has been advised to undergo certain test(s). Mr. S.K. Singh, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Urology in his report has found that the accused-applicant is suffering from Lower Urinary Track Symptoms with Hacmaturia secondary to Malignancy Stricture or Stone Disease. He has been advised to undergo certain test(s) to ascertain exact nature of ailment in respect of his urinary problem. Dr. S.K. Kar, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Psychiatry in his report has opined that the accused-applicant is suffering from "Major depressive disorder" and he has also advised him to undergo certain test(s).
4. These reports are dated 08.01.2021 and the final opinion would be known after the tests as prescribed by the doctors of different departments are conducted.
5. Ms. Rukmini Bobde and Mr. Arun Sinha, learned counsels for the accused-applicant have submitted that from the provisional medical report, it is evident that the accused-applicant is suffering from various ailments including acute depression and, therefore, intensive medical care is required to be provided to the accused-applicant. In respect of the inquiry report of the DIG (Prison), Ms.Bobde submits that she would like to place on record the response of the accused-applicant to the contents of the said report.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that the injury report of the DIG (Prison), Lucknow would demonstrate that the accused-applicant was not only consuming the drugs but he was also selling it to the fellow prisoners. The incident dated 27.11.2020 happened because of use of drugs by the accused-applicant and other prisoners. A large number of prohibited drugs/contraband were recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant and several fellow prisoners have stated that the accused-applicant used to sell these drugs to the fellow prisoners besides consuming himself.
7. From the report of DIG(Prison), Lucknow prima facie it appears that the accused-applicant is a drug addict.
8. Be that as it may, at present the accused-applicant is receiving treatment in the Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. Director, Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow is directed to forward a final diagnosis report of the accused-applicant after all the tests are conducted as advised by the team of doctors as mentioned above. He is further directed that the Head of Department of the Psychiatry Department should examine the accused-applicant and provide treatment and medicine under his regular supervision. The expenses for medical tests and medicines etc shall be born by the family members of the accused-applicant.
9. One of the family members of the accused-applicant shall be permitted to visit the accused-applicant whenever it is required during hospital hours. It is provided that the family member shall not take anything with him/her which is not prescribed or permitted by the hospital administration. Before visiting the accused-applicant, the family member shall report in the office of Chief Medical Officer and, after ensuring that the family member is not bringing anything which is not prescribed by the doctors, he/she shall be permitted to visit the accused-applicant.
10. List this case on 29.01.2021.
11. In the meantime, Director Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow is directed to submit final diagnosis report of the accused-applicant before this Court for further order(s). "
15. On 29.01.2021, final diagnosis report from the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow could not reached to this Court and, therefore, this Court again directed for submission of the final diagnosis report of the accused-applicant by the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Instituted of Medical Sciences, Lucknow.
16. In deference to the order dated 12.01.2021 read with order dated 29.01.2021, a report has been submitted by the Director of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Instituted of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. A Medical Board, consisting of following specialist, was constituted to examine the accused-applicant and to prepare his final diagnosis report:-
i. Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary, Senior Consultant, Department of Medicine;
ii. Dr. Amresh Kumar Singh, Asst. Professor, Department of Cardiology;
iii. Dr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Asso. Professor, Department of Urology;
iv. Dr. Sujeet Kumar Kar, Asso. Professor, Department of Psychiatry.
17. Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary, Chairman of the Medical Board, in his report has stated that the patient, the accused-applicant and, his family members did not give consent for CECT KUB region and Cystoscopy and, they have refused to undergo test and, they have not been cooperating for conducting the diagnosis of the accused-applicant. It is further said that as the accused-applicant and, his family members have not been cooperating for conducting the diagnosis and, therefore, it is not possible to give final opinion about the diagnosis for his Microscopic Haematuria.
18. The individual report of the team of the Medical Board is extracted herein under:-
i. "In reference to letter no.- 147/MS(HB)/RMLIMS/2021 on dated- 05 Feb, 2021 U.T. Anshuman Pandey S/o Anand Kumar Pandey. Patient U.T. was evaluated by Medical Board. I evaluated patient as Physician Patient was examined and clinically from Physician side fit."
(Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary) Sr. Consultant ii. "In reference to letter no 147/MS(HB)/RMLIMS/2021 on dated- 05 Feb. 2021 UT Anshuman Pandey S/o Anand Kumar Pandey His cardiac examination was done by me and found to have high Blood Pressure 190/130 mmHg and high total cholesterol. His physical examination of cardiovascular system was within normal limit. Echocardiographic examination shows mild Mitral regurgitation and mild Concentric Left Ventricular Hypertrophy. Electrocardiogram was normal.
Opinion On the basis of history and investigation, a provisional diagnosis is HYPERTENTION AND DYSLIPIDEMIA Advice
1. Continue treatment as adviced in case sheet.
2 To be followed up in cardiology OPD after discharge."
(Dr. Amresh Kumar Singh) Asst. Professor iii. "In reference to letter no - 147/MS(HBYRMLIMS/2021 on dated- 05 Feb. 2021 U.T. Anshuman Pandey S/o Anand Kumar Pandey.
Pt. U.T. Anshuman Pandey S/o Anand Kumar Pandey. PL is evaluated by the Medical Board and I evaluated the patient as a Urologist.
Patient complaint of Haematuria and Dysuria (Total without clots, pain during voiding, intermittency On and Off for 3 months No history of B/L Flank pain clots.
On examination- Local examination within normal limit. On Urine R/M there was 20 to 30 RBC's and Chemical examination blood +++. It suggested microscopic Haematuria. To find the cause of this microscopic Haematuria we need to do, Urine for Cytology. S.PSA, Uroflow, CECT KUB region if normal than check Cystoscopy +/- Ureteroscopy Opinion-
Patient and Parents did not give concern for CECT KUB region and Cystoscopy+/- Ureteroscopy. So it is difficult to give the final Diagnosis for this Microscopic Haematuria."
(Dr. S.K. Singh) Asso. Professor iv. "In reference to letter no.- 147/MS(HBVRMLIMS/2021 on dated- 05 Feb. 2021 UT Anshuman Pandey S/o Anand Kumar Pandey.
Patient U.T. Anshuman Pandey S/o Anand Kumar Pandey is evaluated. His mental Status examination was done. Patient treatment records are evaluated patient's Psychological assessment report is also evaluated.
Opinion On the basis of history current mental status examination and Psychological assessment is diagnosed with "MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER".
Advice The patient needs regular follow up for continuity of care."
(Dr. S.K. Kar) Asso. Professor
19. Heard Ms. Rukmani Bobde, learned counsel, representing the accused-applicant, Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, and Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent-State.
20. Ms. Rukmani Bobde, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, has submitted that the report received form the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Instituted of Medical Sciences, Lucknow is not correct. There are other methods for conducting the test for his Haematuria and Dysclipidemia other than Cystoscopy and Ureterscopy. The learned counsel has further submitted that the test prescribed by the Medical Board of the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow is dangerous one and, it may be endanger the life of the accused-applicant. The learned counsel has further submitted that the accused-applicant should be enlarged on interim bail to be treated as per his choice on terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Shahvaz Hussain alias Shahbaz Ahmed alias Shanu Vs. The State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3374 of 2020) vide order dated 08.01.2021 has enlarged the accused on bail, who suffered 11 injuries inside the jail and, therefore, the accused-applicant should also be enlarged on bail.
21. On the other hand, Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, has opposed the prayer for bail interim bail on medical ground and, stated that the accused-applicant has been receiving the best treatment by experts/specialists of a very prestigious medical institute i.e. the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. The accused-applicant is not cooperating to carry out his diagnosis so that he is granted bail on one pretext or the other for being treated in a hospital of his choice. The learned Additional Government Advocate has further submitted that the accused-applicant has been involved in criminal activities inside the jail in taking the drugs and selling the same to co-prisoners and, using mobile phone etc. The learned Additional Government Advocate has further submitted that this Court has taken into consideration the medical condition of the accused-applicant and, has ensured the best treatment possible to him, but since he and his family members are not cooperating in treatment of the accused-applicant, his prayer for being released on interim bail, on medical ground, is liable to be rejected.
22. From the orders, extracted herein above, it is evident that this Court has ensured the best possible treatment for the accused-applicant and, in fact, he is getting the best possible treatment in a prestigious medical institute i.e. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow. This Court is not an expert in medical science and, therefore, is not in a position to overwrite/contradict the opinion expressed by the experts about ailment and test of the accused-applicant. There is no material to come to the conclusion that the tests suggested for diagnosis of the accused-applicant may endanger his life. The Medical Institute is a government institute of high reputation and, if the tests suggested by the experts of the field were dangerous, the Doctors would not have suggested the same.
23. It appears that this application for interim bail has been filed by the accused-applicant to get out of jail on one pretext or the other. This Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on interim bail on medical ground and, therefore, the plea of interim bail is refused and, the application is rejected.
24. However, the Director of the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow is directed to discharge the accused-applicant after he is recovered from his ailment to be lodged in jail again.
Order Date :-18.2.2021 MVS/-