- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sureshchandra Ramanlal v. State Of Gujarat And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
An FIR was lodged in 2002 against the appellant and several co-accused for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 439, 471, 473 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act in Crime Case No. 1681/2002, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad. The appellant first sought anticipatory bail in 2004, but withdrew that application. A second application was later rejected by the Gujarat High Court on 10 August 2007 because the appellant had neither surrendered nor cooperated with the investigation, leading to proceedings under Sections 70 and 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court also noted a perceived disregard for the law.
The appellant, aged about 75 and suffering from multiple serious ailments, appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the Court obtained a detailed medical report dated 10 May 2008 confirming severe lumbar canal stenosis, osteoarthritis, diabetes, obesity (weight 120 kg), and confinement to bed. The record further showed that forty-nine other accused—including senior bank officials and loanees—had already been released on bail.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant should be granted anticipatory bail in Crime Case No. 1681/2002 despite previous non-cooperation with the investigation.
- Whether the appellant’s advanced age, grave health condition, and the fact that all other accused are already on bail justify departure from the High Court’s order refusing anticipatory bail.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook a fact-specific assessment and reached the following conclusions:
- Medical Condition: The Court placed considerable weight on the uncontroverted medical report, which described the appellant as “absolutely bedridden,” dependent on two assistants for daily activities, and at risk of life-threatening complications without specialized care.
- Parity with Co-Accused: All forty-nine other accused—including high-ranking bank officials—had already been granted bail. The appellant had resigned in 1999 and was therefore considered less likely to influence ongoing investigations.
- Interest of Justice vs. Investigation Needs: The Court balanced humanitarian considerations against investigatory requirements, concluding that adequate conditions (monetary deposit, cooperation with interrogation, travel restrictions, and surety) would safeguard the investigation.
Having weighed these factors, the Court found the High Court’s refusal of anticipatory bail disproportionate to the appellant’s circumstances.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal is allowed; the appellant is enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Key conditions include: (i) deposit of ₹40 lakhs with the liquidated bank in four equal monthly instalments beginning 23-5-2008; (ii) availability for police interrogation; (iii) prohibition on influencing witnesses; (iv) restriction on foreign travel without High Court permission; and (v) a ₹50,000 bail bond with surety if arrested.
Implications are confined to the parties: the appellant gains protection from arrest subject to compliance with stringent conditions, while investigative interests are preserved. The judgment sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming the discretionary, fact-intensive nature of anticipatory bail in light of humanitarian factors.
J.M Panchal, J.— Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-8-2007 rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6590 of 2007 by which the prayer made by the appellant to enlarge him on anticipatory bail with reference to Crime Case No. 1681 of 2002, registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 439, 471, 473 and 120-B IPC read with Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act, was refused.
3. The record shows that in the year 2002 an FIR was lodged against the appellant and thirteen other co-accused for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 439, 471, 473(a), 120-B IPC and Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act. The appellant had approached the High Court for anticipatory bail but the same was disposed of as withdrawn by an order dated 22-1-2004. The appellant again preferred another application for obtaining anticipatory bail. The High Court rejected the same on the ground that though the previous application for anticipatory bail was disposed of on 22-1-2004, the appellant had neither surrendered before the investigating officer nor extended cooperation in the investigation, as a result of which the investigating agency had initiated proceedings against the appellant under Sections 70 and 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to the High Court the appellant had no regard for law and, therefore, his prayer for anticipatory bail was liable to be rejected though he had pleaded his illness. In that view of the matter, the High Court has rejected the application for anticipatory bail giving rise to the instant appeal.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents forming part of the instant appeal. The appellant has pleaded that as he is aged about 75 years and suffering from various ailments, the anticipatory bail should be granted to him.
5. During the course of hearing of the instant appeal the State was directed to submit a report on the health of the appellant. Accordingly, the State has produced a report dated 10-5-2008 submitted by Dr. V.K Gautam, MS (Ortho), Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, B.J Medical College, Civil Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, relating to the health of the appellant. As per the said report the appellant is diagnosed with a case of lumbar canal stenosis with severe lumbar sodalities of L2-3-4 and L5S1. According to the said report he has severe osteoarthritis below knee and deformities at knee. The report further states that the appellant has sustained fracture of ankle for which he has been operated and metal implants are found in his body. The report shows that the appellant is known heavy diabetic on oral anti-diabetic drugs and has hypoesthesia below D12-L1 and anaesthesia below L-3 due to lumbar canal stenosis and diabetic neuropathy.
6. What is relevant to notice is that as per the said report the appellant is severely obese weighing 120 kg and he is not able to do his activities of daily living without at least two assistants. It is also mentioned in the report that he is absolutely bedridden due to severe osteoarthritis below knee, lumbar canal stenosis, osteoporosis, diabetes and obesity and that he needs special toilet and bathroom. It is highlighted in the said report that he has danger of having bedsores, pressure sores without specialised treatment and if left untreated, the diseases may lead to his death. According to Dr. Gautam, prognosis is not going to improve further due to increasing age and servile changes.
7. The record would indicate that there are as many as forty-nine accused, who were arrested and each one of them has already been enlarged on bail. The Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, eleven other Directors, two General Managers, Accountant and as many as thirty loanees of the Bank have been enlarged on bail. The appellant, at the relevant time, was ex-Vice-Chairman of the Bank and he had resigned in the year 1999 due to his deteriorating health.
8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, more particularly, having regard to the health of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the appellant is enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The appellant is enlarged on anticipatory bail with reference to Crime Case No. 1681 of 2002 registered with Navrangpura Police Station at Ahmedabad for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 439, 471, 473, 120-B IPC and Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act on his depositing a sum of Rs 40 lakhs with Respondent 2 i.e Sabarmati Cooperative Bank (in liquidation).
10. It would be open to the appellant to deposit the abovementioned amount in four equal monthly instalments, first of which would be deposited by 23-5-2008. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required. The appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. The appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the High Court.
11. If the appellant is arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of Navrangpura Police Station and is prepared to give bail he shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs 50,000 with like surety for the same amount. It would, thereafter, be open to the appellant to apply for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court hearing such an application shall decide the same on merits without being influenced by the fact that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
12. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Alert