Swaran Singh vs Dri
2008 Latest Caselaw 1106 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Bail Application No.31/2008

%                    Date of decision : 23.07.2008


Swaran Singh                                    ....... Petitioner
                         Through:    Mr.K.K. Sud, Sr. Advocate with
                                     Mr.Anupam Mishra, Advocate.

                                Versus

DRI                                              ......... Respondent
                         Through :   Mr. Satish Aggarwala with
                                     Ms.Pooja Bhaskar, Advocates.


CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

      1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may                      YES
             be allowed to see the judgment?
      2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                     NO
      3.     Whether the judgment should be reported                    NO
             in the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

Crl.M.A.No.8510/2008

This is an application by the petitioner/applicant for extension of

interim bail for eight weeks granted by order dated 23rd May, 2008.

The applicant contended that he was granted interim bail on 25th

January, 2008 on the ground of illness of his wife. The petitioner was

released on interim bail and remained on interim bail till 22nd April,

2008. The petitioner surrendered on 23rd April, 2008. Before

surrendering on 23rd April, 2008, the applicant had filed another

application being Crl.M.(Bail) No.537/2008. Though the interim bail of

the petitioner/applicant was not extended after the expiry of interim

bail on 22nd April, 2008, however, pursuant to the said application, the

petitioner/applicant was again released on interim bail on 23rd May,

2008 for eight weeks from the date of his release.

The application, Crl.M.B. No.537/2008, was opposed by the

respondent on the ground that the petitioner was granted interim bail

on 24th March, 2008 on the ground of hospitalization of his wife but the

petitioner's wife was discharged on the next day on 25th March, 2008.

This Court considered that the wife of the petitioner required rest as

had been advised by the doctor and also relied on the prescriptions

issued by the Government Medical College, Amritsar, advising

physiotherapy as well as neurological treatment to the petitioner's wife.

This Court also considered the fact that it could not be disputed that

the wife of the petitioner had undergone a serious surgery on her back

on 2nd February, 2008. While granting interim bail by order dated 23rd

May, 2008 for eight weeks from the date of release, this Court also

relied on the certificate of the Village Panchayat confirming that the

family of the petitioner is not a joint family despite the report of the

investigating agency that the wife of the petitioner was not living

separately and interim bail for eight weeks was granted.

The petitioner now seeks extension of his interim bail on the

ground that the he has to take his wife, Ranjit Kaur, to Amritsar

Hospital on every alternate day for treatment and physiotherapy as a

consequence of operation of vertebrae resulting in prolapse of the disc

and consequent complications which are causing her repeated

admissions as indoor patient in the hospital. It is contended that on

account of it she has been again admitted on 10th July, 2008 as indoor

patient and she needs an attendant and a certificate of hospital dated

16th July, 2008 has been produced in support of the contentions raised

by the petitioner.

The petitioner has also produced the physiotherapy record of

every alternate day at the Amritsar Hospital which is mainly in the

shape of money receipts. The petitioner/applicant contends that he has

not exploited the liberty granted to him while releasing him on the

interim bail and he has been appearing in the trial Court even during

the period of interim bail and has always been represented by a duly

authorized counsel. The petitioner is stated not to be a previous convict

and has clean antecedents and roots in the society. The petitioner, in

the circumstances, has sought extension of interim bail for a further

period of three months from the date of expiry of interim bail for eight

weeks which was granted by order dated 23rd May, 2008.

The application is strongly opposed by the respondent contending

inter alia that the copy of the petition for extension of interim bail was

served at 3.00 PM on 18th July, 2008 in the office of the counsel for

DRI. Department, therefore, could be informed only on 21st July, 2008

as 19th July and 20th July, 2008 were holidays. It is contended that

despite the short time given to the respondent, the certificate dated 16th

July, 2008 issued by the Government Hospital, Amritsar, has been

verified and it is admitted that the certificate is issued by the hospital

authorities.

The extension of interim bail for a further period of three months

as has been claimed by the petitioner is, however, opposed on the

ground that interim bail does not mean perpetual bail and on the

ground of disk related problem which is a recurring condition and

which is not of an exceptional nature, the interim bail should not be

repeatedly granted as it would set a bad precedent.

The respondent, however, admitted that the petitioner was

granted interim bail by Special Judge on 25th July, 2007 for 10 days

which interim bail was extended from time to time till 22nd August,

2007 and thereafter the petitioner was directed to surrender on 23rd

August, 2007. The petitioner, therefore, surrendered on 23rd August,

2007 and he was produced for the trial in judicial custody on 13th

September, 2007; 29th October, 2007 and 13th November, 2007. An

application of the petitioner for interim bail was, however, dismissed by

Additional Sessions Judge on 16th November, 2007 and another

application for interim bail was again dismissed on 17th December,

2007.

The respondent, however, admitted that the petitioner was again

granted bail by the High Court on 23rd January, 2008 which was

extended and he remained on interim bail till 22nd April, 2008 and

thereafter he surrendered. It is also admitted the he was again granted

interim bail on 23rd May, 2008 pursuant to which he was released on

bail on 28th May, 2008. During the pendency of the period of interim

bail, petitioner has now sought further extension for a period of three

months.

Though the respondent has not denied the certificate issued by

the Government Hospital, Amritsar, stipulating that as a consequence

of operation of vertebrae resulting in prolapse of the disc and

consequent complications, she has again been admitted on 10th July,

2008 and even as an indoor patient she need an attendant, the

respondent has contended that the matter be referred to a panel of

specialists.

Since the petitioner had been released on interim bail by this

Court by order dated 23rd May, 2008 considering almost same pleas

and contentions as has been raised now by the respondent in the

present application for extension of interim bail, it may not be

appropriate to decline the extension of the bail on the same pleas which

had been considered and ignored while granting interim bail. The fact

that the wife of the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 25th

March, 2008 one day after the interim bail was granted on 24th March,

2008 was considered while disposing of the application being Crl.M.(B)

No.537/2008. Similarly the opposition to grant of interim bail on the

ground that the petitioner's wife was living in a joint family and there

are people to look after her was considered and despite that interim bail

was not declined to the petitioner.

Whether the interim bail should be extended or not, therefore, is

to be considered mainly on the basis of the certificate issued by the

Government Hospital. The said certificate is admitted by the

respondent, however, a prayer has been made to refer the case of the

petitioner's wife to a panel of specialists. Unless the condition of the

wife of the petitioner and the advice rendered by the Government

Hospital doctors is challenged or refuted, I do not find any reason or

ground to refer the matter to a panel of specialists. On account of

operation of vertebrae of the wife of the petitioner, he was released on

interim bail and thereafter in the post operation period also the

petitioner was released on interim bail. Prolapse of the disc and

consequent complications entailing re-admission on 10th July, 2008 as

an indoor patient, will also be one such circumstance which will entitle

petitioner for interim bail in the present facts and circumstances. These

are such circumstances which are sufficient to allow the interim bail of

the petitioner.

The application of the petitioner is also opposed on the ground

that the petitioner had sought exemption from appearance on 22nd

April, 2008. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner had to surrender

on 23rd April, 2008, as his bail was not extended and therefore this

cannot be construed against him in any manner so as to deny him the

interim bail if the petitioner is entitled for the same otherwise. In any

case, though the petitioner had sought exemption from appearance on

22nd April, 2008, later on, he had been granted interim bail for eight

weeks by order dated 23rd May, 2008.

The respondent has also relied on Union of India v. Ram Samujh

& Another, 1999 (3) C.C. Cases (SC) 22; Vimal Behl v. DRI, Crl. M.(M)

No.3569/2003 decided on 9th September, 2003; 1999(3) C.C. Case (HC)

152, Islamuddin @ Chottey v. State of Delhi to contend that the

petitioner is a person dealing with narcotic drugs which are hazardous

to the society and if such persons are released on bail, they may

continue with their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in

intoxicants clandestinely and, therefore, the bail should not be granted.

In Union of India v. Ram Samujh (supra), the Supreme Court had

rather held that to check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the

market, the Parliament has provided that the person accused of

offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial

unless mandatory conditions provided under Section 37 are met.

Petitioner has already been released on interim bail a number of times

as the mandatory conditions under Section 37 had been met. Learned

counsel for the respondent is unable to show the change in the

circumstances or non-compliance with the mandatory conditions under

Section 37 so as to decline release of the petitioner on interim bail for

further period in the present facts and circumstances. The other

judgment relied on by the petitioner in the case of Vimal Behl (supra) is

also distinguishable as in that case the accused was given liberty to

attend the funeral of his father in custody which he, however, declined

and in the circumstances the petitioner was not granted interim bail.

The other judgments relied on by the respondent, Islamuddin @ Chotte

v. State of Delhi, 82 (1999) DLT 449; Ram Prakash Pandey v. State of

U.P. & Another, 2002 (1) C.C. Cases (SC) 18; Pawan @ Tamatar v. Ram

Prakash Pandey, 2002 (2) JCC 1069 (SC); State v. Jaspal Singh Gill,

1984 Crl.L.J. 1211-1215 and Manoj Kumar @ Goldy v. State (DRI) titled

Crl. M.M. No.3079/2002 decided on 2nd December, 2002 are clearly

distinguishable and on the basis of the ratio of the same it cannot be

held that the petitioner is not entitled for extension of the interim bail

as the petitioner has already been granted interim bail a number of

times and during the time the petitioner had been on bail he has not

exploited the liberty granted to him and rather surrendered after the

expiry of period of interim bail and has even appeared before the courts

on the dates fixed in the trial during the period he was on interim bail.

Considering the present facts and circumstances, I do not feel the

necessity to deal with other judgments in detail relied on by the

respondent as the fact situation of the present case is apparently

distinguishable from the fact situation of the decisions relied on by the

respondent. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides.

What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every

observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various

observations made in it. The ratio of any decision must be understood

in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time

ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not

what logically follows from it. It is well settled that a little difference in

facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential

value of a decision. The Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd and Anr. v. N.R.Vairamani and Anr., AIR 2004 SC 778

had observed:-

"Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes".

A case is only an authority for what it decides. As observed by the

Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra AIR 1968

SC 647:-

"A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. On this topic this is what Earl of Halsbury,LC said in Quinn v. Leathem, 1901 AC 495:

"Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood (1898) AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow

logically Page 2009 from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all."

In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 1987

SC 1073a ,the Supreme Court observed:-

"The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it."

Similarly in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd

(2003) 2 SC 111 (vide para 59), the Supreme observed:-

"It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision."

Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may

make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal

of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

Consequently by placing reliance on these judgment relied on by the

respondent, the petitioner cannot be declined extension of bail in the

present facts and circumstances.

Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, the application for grant

of interim bail is allowed and interim bail of the petitioner is extended

on the same terms and conditions as has been directed by this Court in

order dated 23rd January, 2008 and 23rd May, 2008 for a further period

of eight weeks. The petitioner shall surrender after the expiry of the

said period of eight weeks and shall keep on appearing before the trial

Court on all the dates unless specifically exempted by the trial Court.

In view of the extension of interim bail for a further period of eight

weeks, petitioner need not surrender tomorrow, i.e., 24th July, 2008.

With these directions, the application is disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court

Master of this Court.

Crl.M.B. 4980/2008

This is an application by the respondent for initiating appropriate

action against the petitioner on the ground that a fraud has been played

by the petitioner as he got the interim bail on 24th March, 2008 on the

ground of hospitalization of his wife, however, his wife was discharged

on 25th March, 2008.

The application is contested by the petitioner inter alia on the

ground that the medical certificate of the petitioner was verified and

after hearing the parties the bail was granted to the petitioner and the

respondent had not sought cancellation of the interim bail which was

granted to him. The application is also contested on the ground that

the grant of interim bail to the petitioner by order dated 23rd May, 2008

was opposed on the same ground which was considered by this Court,

however, the plea of the respondent was ignored and interim bail was

granted to the petitioner. It is also contended that merely because the

wife of the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 25th March,

2008 it did not mean that the wife of the petitioner did not require

attendant with her after a debilitating operation for vertebrae.

By a separate order, in another application filed by the petitioner

for extension of interim bail, the interim bail has been extended for a

further period of eight weeks. The pleas raised by the

respondent/applicant were considered while disposing of the Crl.M.(B)

No.531/2008 and on the basis of the same the interim bail was not

rejected.

Therefore, there are no grounds to take any action against the

petitioner for the fraud alleged to have been committed by the petitioner

in getting interim bail on 24th March, 2008 and his wife being

discharged from the hospital on 25th March. The petitioner had

surrendered on 23rd April, 2008 and thereafter he was again granted

interim bail by order dated 23rd May, 2008. The application is without

any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.

July 23, 2008                                       ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'