- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Surjeet v. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, accused in FIR No. 49/2020 registered at the Crime Branch, New Delhi for offences under Sections 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has been on interim bail since 12.06.2020 on medical grounds. The petitioner sought yet another extension of interim bail citing medical reasons. The State opposed the application, submitting a status report dated 28.01.2021 indicating that the petitioner’s physical and medical condition was stable, supported by a discharge summary dated 25.01.2021 from Deen Dayal Hospital. The State also noted that the petitioner had previously sought regular bail through Bail Application 3806/2020, which was allowed only as an extension of interim bail until 21.01.2021, with the observation that medical treatment could be provided within jail premises and no further extension would be granted.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of interim bail on medical grounds despite medical reports indicating stable condition and availability of treatment within jail premises.
- Whether the petitioner’s conduct in filing multiple bail applications affects the consideration of the present application.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim that investigation is complete and he is not required for custodial trial can be accepted in light of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Effective cure and care are not possible inside jail premises.
- Investigation in the case is complete, so no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail.
State’s Arguments
- The petitioner’s physical and medical condition is stable as per the status report dated 28.01.2021.
- The discharge summary from Deen Dayal Hospital notes that the petitioner’s treatment is also available in Tihar Jail.
- The petitioner had previously sought regular bail but was granted only an interim bail extension with explicit directions that no further extension would be granted.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the petitioner has been on interim bail since 12.06.2020 on medical grounds and that the current application seeks an extension on similar grounds. The status report and discharge summary indicate the petitioner’s stable condition and confirm that the required medical treatment is available within the jail premises. The court emphasized the petitioner’s conduct in repeatedly filing bail applications despite prior orders limiting bail extensions. The court observed that the petitioner had previously obtained an extension of interim bail only due to resource constraints in jail, with a clear direction that no further extensions would be granted. Additionally, the court rejected the petitioner’s claim that investigation was complete and custodial trial was unnecessary, citing the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly given the commercial nature of the recovery involved. Considering these factors, the court concluded that extension of interim bail on medical grounds was unwarranted.
Holding and Implications
The application for extension of interim bail is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the petitioner will not receive any further extension of interim bail on medical grounds and is expected to continue treatment within the jail premises. No broader legal precedent was established by this order.
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.:—
Crl. M.A. 813/2021
1. Yet another application has been filed by petitioner seeking extension of interim bail. Petitioner is accused in FIR No. 49/2020, registered at police station Crime Branch, New Delhi for the offences under Sections 20/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The application is strongly opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State while drawing attention of this Court to status report dated 28.01.2021 placed on record, wherein it has been stated that the physical and medical condition of petitioner is stable. A copy of discharge summary sheet dated 25.01.2021, issued from Deen Dayal Hospital, New Delhi has been annexed with the status report in this regard. In addition, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has also brought attention of this Court to the fact that during his release on interim bail on medical grounds, petitioner moved another application [Bail. Appln. 3806/2020] before a Coordinate Bench of this Court seeking regular bail, though learned counsel for petitioner pressed for interim bail therein and vide order dated 10.12.2020, the said application was allowed by the Court and the interim bail was extended till 21.01.2021 by observing that petitioner had been on interim bail for last six months on medical grounds and further medical treatment can be provided within jail premises and his bail was extended solely for the reason that the resources in jail authorities were stretched and no further extension shall be granted.
3. However, learned counsel for petitioner insists upon extension of interim bail while submitting that effective cure and care of petitioner is not possible inside the jail premises and also that investigation in this case is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in jail.
4. Heard.
5. It is not in dispute that petitioner is on interim bail since 12.06.2020 on medical grounds and another extension of interim bail is sought on medical grounds only. As per status report dated 28.01.2021, necessary verification was done from the Head of the Department of Deen Dayal Hospital, New Delhi. Discharge summary sheet dated 25.01.2021 placed on record notes that petitioner was admitted on 13.01.2021 for anti coagulation therapy and optimization and after treatment was discharged on 25.01.2021 in stable condition. In the aforesaid discharge summary sheet, Dr. P.S. Sarang, Specialist and HOD (Surgery) has specifically stated that this treatment is also available in Tihar Jail. In view of aforesaid, I am of the view that petitioner can continue his treatment within jail premises, if so required and extension of his interim bail on medical grounds is unwarranted.
6. What is pertinent to mention here is the conduct of petitioner. Despite being on interim bail since 12.06.2021, petitioner moved bail application [Bail. Appln. 3806/2020] before a Coordinate Bench of this Court seeking regular/interim bail. The Coordinate Bench while taking note of various orders passed by this Court, extended petitioner's interim bail till 21.01.2021 solely for the reason that the resources in jail authorities were stretched and specifically observing that petitioner can undergo further medical treatment within jail premises and no further extension shall be granted, but still petitioner has preferred the present application on 19.01.2021 and without disclosing order of 10.12.2021 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in [Bail. Appln. 3806/2020], obtained further extension of interim bail till today.
7. At this stage, this Court is informed that another petition of petitioner [Bail Appln.299/2021] seeking regular bail in the same FIR case, has been filed and it is also listed before this Court today. On one hand, petitioner has filed the petition in hand for extension of interim bail on medical grounds and in addition, he has also instituted another petition [Bail Appln.299/2021] seeking regular bail, which includes medical grounds as well. It has been further informed that counsel for the petitioner had previously moved an application for regular bail (Bail Appln. 3186/2020, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.10.2020 before Coordinate Bench of this Court, with liberty to petitioner to file fresh petition for interim bail, despite the fact that petitioner was already on interim bail at that point of time. Such kind of practice is highly deprecating and is not in consonance to standards of Bar and Bench.
8. Even otherwise, recovery at the instance of petitioner is commercial in nature and there is a bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act, therefore, the plea of petitioner that investigation is complete and he is not required for custodial trial, is rejected.
9. With aforesaid observations, this application is accordingly dismissed.
10. The order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
Alert