Thounaojam Shyamkumar Singh vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2009 Latest Caselaw 2654 Del

*              THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Bail Application No. 1120/2009

                                        Reserved on : 01.07.2009
                                      Date of Decision : 16.7.2009

Thounaojam Shyamkumar Singh            ...... Petitioner
                          Through : Mr.K.K. Sud, Sr. Adv.
                           Mr.Ghanshyam Sharma, Adv.


                                 Versus

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)                 ...... Respondent
                                   Through : Mr. Pawan Behl, APP
                                    for the State.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                   YES
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?        YES
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                                YES

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439

Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim bail for

a period of three months in FIR No. 70/2006 under Section

18/19/20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004 read with

section 120B of the IPC and section 3/9 Official Secret Act, 1923.

2. Briefly stated the facts as stated in the bail application are

that the petitioner claims himself to be Deputy Secretary of

Manipur Legislative Assembly and Chairman of three Statutory

House Committees. He was elected as MLA while in judicial

custody in the aforesaid case on 2nd October, 2006. He along

with two other co-accused persons was arrested from I.G.I.

Airport. It is stated by him that nothing incriminating was found

against the petitioner by the investigating agency. It is further

stated by him that the petitioner was granted interim bail on 14th

March, 2007 which he continued to enjoy for a period of two

years. It is further stated that on 17th February, 2009 the

petitioner's regular bail application bearing no. 2165/2008 was

dismissed by the High Court and a Special Leave Petition was

filed by the petitioner against the said order which was also

dismissed on 23rd March, 2009. The petitioner is stated to have

surrendered on 18th April, 2009 in a Court at Imphal (Manipur)

in another case since his surety who was his mother had lost

faith in him. The petitioner is presently in judicial custody in

Imphal and stands admitted to Regional Institute of Medical

Sciences, Imphal on the ground on which the petitioner has

sought interim bail. It is alleged by the petitioner that he is

suffering from multiple ailments like Hypertension, Angina,

Diabetes, Mallitus, Hyperuricemia and Dyslipidaemia, and

therefore, seeks interim bail.

3. This Court had issued notice on this application on 29 th

May, 2009. On 24th June, 2009, the learned Vacation Judge

directed the respondent to obtain verification report regarding his

medical report. The verification report from the Office of

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, New Delhi has

been received along with the documents from the Regional

Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal which shows that the

petitioner is suffering from Angina Pectoris, Hypertension,

Diabetes Mellitus, Cardiac Arrhythia and Depression on account

of acute stress reaction. He has been advised hospitalization by

the doctor on 20th April, 2009, according to one of the report.

4. I have heard the learned senior counsel Mr. K. K. Sud on

behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the

State. I have also gone through the record.

5. It has been vehemently contended by the learned senior

counsel that the petitioner's condition is very precarious and

unless and until he is released on bail on medical ground to

enable him to undergo treatment in some good hospital either at

Guwahati or Kolkata his very existence is in danger. The learned

senior counsel has further stated that despite the direction by

the High Court to expedite the trial of the petitioner in the

instant case he has already suffered incarceration for more than

seven months and there is no possibility of the matter getting

decided at an early date because the two other co-accused

persons who are jointly being tried along with the petitioner are

facing trial in 5 and 8 cases respectively at Imphal itself, as a

consequence of which their appearance in the present case

becomes difficult. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance

on case titled Babu Singh & Ors Vs. State of U.P. (1978) 1

SCC 579 in order to drive his point home to contend that

personal liberty of person should not be curtailed only because

he is accused of an offence and the trial is pending.

6. As against this, the learned counsel for the State has

vehemently opposed even the grant of interim bail on the ground

that the regular bail application of the petitioner stands rejected

right up to the Supreme Court. It is urged that keeping in view

the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner in helping

the two known terrorists of Manipur State in arranging their

meetings, providing them shelter and giving logistical support,

the aforesaid offences have been registered against him. My

attention has been specifically drawn to the earlier bail

application bearing no. 2165/2008 filed by the petitioner which

was dismissed. It was contended that the multiple ailments on

the basis of which he is claiming interim bail now, were the

ailments from which the petitioner was suffering earlier also

when his regular bail was rejected by the High Court and

Supreme Court and therefore, this cannot be a ground for grant

of interim bail as this is not a new ground. Moreover, there are

already non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner for

his non-appearance before the learned Special Judge. Now that

the petitioner have chosen to surrender in Imphal, the learned

ADJ has also issued production warrants for procuring his

attendance here in the present case.

7. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of

the parties as well as gone through the record.

8. I fully agree with the learned counsel for the State that the

grounds on which the petitioner is seeking interim bail now were

already in existence even at the time when the earlier bail

application was filed and disposed of, and therefore, it could not

be said that these are ailments which have afflicted the petitioner

after rejection of his bail application by the Supreme Court which

may warrant the grant of bail to him. I do not disagree with the

proposition of law which is relied upon by the learned senior

counsel in case titled Babu Singh & Ors Vs. State of U.P.

(1978) 1 SCC 579 that bail and not jail should be normally the

rule. However, the said proposition of law cannot be applied in

vacuum and the interest of the society has also to be borne in

mind while considering the bail application even though it may

be interim bail application. In the instant case, the nature of

allegations which are levelled against the petitioner in the charge

sheet are very serious in nature in the sense that he has been

acting against the natural interest. Further, I have serious

doubts about the fact that the petitioner after obtaining the bail

may not appear at all before the learned Special Judge in the

trial. This view gets credence from the fact that the petitioner

instead of surrendering in Delhi has chosen to surrender in

Imphal, Manipur.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to exercise the

discretion in favour of the petitioner by giving him the benefit of

interim bail on medical grounds. Accordingly, the bail

application is dismissed. Expression of any opinion hereinbefore

may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.

V.K. SHALI, J.

JULY 16, 2009 KP