Karim Morani vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2011 Latest Caselaw 3419 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Judgment reserved on: July 14, 2011
                                        Judgment delivered on: July 19, 2011

+      CRL.M.B. 1068/2011 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 883/2011

       KARIM MORANI                                             ....PETITIONER

                       Through:         Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with
                                        Mr. R.N.Karan Jawala, Mr. Sandeep
                                        Kapur, Mr. Shivek Trehan, Mr. Udit
                                        Mendiratta & Mr. Arundhati Katju,
                                        Advocates.

                                        Versus

       CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ....RESPONDENT
               Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate on behalf of
                        Mr.U.U.Lalit, Sr. Advocate/Special Public
                        Prosecutor.



        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be
       reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

1. Karim Morani, the petitioner herein is seeking interim bail in

case RC No. DAI-2009-A-0045 on medical grounds.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner filed a regular

bail application being Bail Application No. 883/2011 wherein he also

filed an application for interim bail being Crl.Misc. Bail No.

1068/2011 with the prayer that during the pendency of his regular

bail application, taking into account the medical condition of the

petitioner, he may be released on interim bail.

3. On 27th June, 2011, learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew

the regular bail application. So far as the application for grant of

interim bail is concerned, he stated that the petitioner was

discharged after certain tests by G.B.Pant Hospital on 24th June,

2011 and certain other test reports were still awaited. Thus, he

sought adjournment for argument on application for interim bail.

4. When it was pointed out as to how the application for interim

bail survives when the main bail application has been withdrawn,

learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in

his absence, the assisting counsel withdrew the main bail

application and he requested that the application for interim bail be

treated as an application on medical ground only. The request

appears to be justified. Instead of asking the petitioner to file fresh

application for interim bail on medical ground, the instant

application is treated as an application on behalf of the petitioner

seeking his release on interim bail because of his medical condition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the

medical history of the petitioner since 1991 till 2007. He has also

referred to photocopies of the Discharge Summary of the petitioner

from Lilavati Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai dated 16th May,

2011, a Review Article on "Coronary Artery Ectasia: From Diagnosis

to Treatment" by Sophie Mavrogeni and an article titled "Coronary

artery ectasias: imaging, functional assessment and clinical

implications" published in Oxford Journal's Medicine European Heart

Journal, Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages 1026 to 1031. On the basis of

aforesaid record, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the petitioner has a long history of coronary artery ectasias. He

is also suffering from Pituitary Adenoma and Neurocardiogenic

Syncope besides other ailments. It is submitted that in view of the

aforesaid medical condition, the petitioner has been advised a

regulated life and to avoid stress. Learned counsel submitted that

detention in jail pending trial is a cause of great stress for the

petitioner and it can aggravate his medical condition. It is argued

that medical facilities in jail are not adequate to deal with any

emergency. Thus, it is urged that petitioner be released on interim

bail, at least for a period of 6 to 8 weeks. In order to stress his

point, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to

the report of G.B.Pant Hospital dated 24 th June, 2011 regarding

current medical status of the petitioner wherein it is noted by the

Board of Doctors that when Head-up-Tilt Test (HUTT) was conducted

on the petitioner, he became unconscious with unrecordable blood

pressure and slowing of pulse to 47 beats/min., suggesting

neurocardiogenic Syncope as the cause, predominantly

vasodepressor type. Thus, it is strongly urged on behalf of the

petitioner that the petitioner may be released on interim bail in

order to get his medical tests done by the doctors who were treating

him before his arrest and whatever condition the court feels

justified, may be imposed upon him.

6. Learned Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate appearing for the

respondent/CBI has strongly opposed the bail application. She

submits that perusal of the medical record submitted by the

petitioner would show that it relates to the period with effect from

January, 1991 till March, 2007. She submits that after the bypass

surgery of the petitioner in 2007, there is no record of treatment of

the petitioner for the past four years. The medical certificates

submitted by the petitioner after the bypass surgery relate to the

year 2011, that too, within close proximity of the date of filing of

charge sheet. Learned Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the

copy of the medical certificate of petitioner Karim Morani issued by

Dr. Sudhansu Bhattacharya dated 26.04.2011 wherein it is recorded

that Karim Morani had visited him in March, 2007 with deffuse

blocks of most of his coronary arteries. He received bypass grafts

and required reboring of his two major vessels-LAD and PD. The

doctor has certified that the patient had been generally fit after

surgery and he had been advised a line of treatment. Learned

Prosecutor has also drawn my attention to photocopies of the

reports of Department of Cardiology and the Department of

Neurosurgery, Grant Medical College & Sir J.J.Group of Hospitals,

Byculla, Mumbai respectively, both dated 19th May, 2011. In both

these reports, after examination of the patient Karim Morani, the

doctors concerned have observed that the patient does not require

any active cardiac or neurosurgical management. Both the

Cardiology Department and the Department of Neurosurgery had

advised Karim Morani to continue with his treatment and follow up

his treatment as an out-patient. It is further submitted that the

petitioner was medically examined by the Board of Doctors at

G.B.Pant Hospital on 24th June, 2011 wherein the Board of Doctors

reported about his medical history and concluded that the patient

has been discharged after counselling him about his condition with

advice for further follow up in the Cardiology and Neurology

Departments. Learned Prosecutor has also drawn my attention to

the latest medical report dated 11.07.2011 of the petitioner

received from the Medical Board of G.B.Pant Hospital wherein also, it

is noted that Karim Morani has been advised to continue treatment

and precaution as previously recommended to him at the time of his

discharge on 24th June, 2011 along with the Tablet Alprax-0.25 m.g.

twice a day. The Board has opined that the patient has CAD, P/O

CABG, normal left ventricular function with pituitary micro-adenoma,

likely neurocardiogenic Syncope along with anxiety. Learned

Prosecutor has thus concluded that the petitioner is maintaining

normal life after his by-pass surgery and his medical condition is

stable, as such, there is no reason for his release on interim bail.

7. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.

"Interim bail", as the terminology suggests, is an interim

arrangement for release of the accused to meet certain exigencies.

It can never be a substitute for regular bail. The petitioner has

already withdrawn his application for regular bail. Therefore, it is to

be seen whether the petitioner, on the basis of medical record

produced by him, has been able to make out a case for his release

on interim bail. The medical record placed on record by the

petitioner starts from the year 1991.

8. From the aforesaid record, it transpires that the petitioner

underwent by-pass surgery around the year 2007. Thereafter, for a

continuous period of 4 years, there is no medical record, which

prima facie indicates that during the period from 2007 to 2011, the

petitioner did not suffer any medical complication. Coming to the

medical record of the petitioner for the year 2011, it would be seen

that the record submitted by the petitioner starts from 25 th April,

2011. It is pertinent to note that supplementary charge sheet

showing the petitioner as one of the accused was also filed in the

court on 25th April, 2011. From the medical record of year 2011

submitted by the petitioner, it cannot be said that petitioner is

suffering from such a medical condition which cannot be managed

by proper treatment regime in jail hospital. As per the report of

Dr.Yash Lokhandwala, D.M.(Cardiology) dated 13th May, 2011,

following line of treatment was suggested to the petitioner:

"Suggest

 Neurosurgery opinion.

                           No anti-hypertensives.
                           Stop Aquazide.
                           Increase the salt and water intake.
                           Dietary and postural advice.
                           Strongly avoid any stressful situation.
                           To see the Holter report.
                           LP (a)and Homocysteine"

The record also suggests that the petitioner got admitted in Lilavati

Hospital & Research Centre for treatment on 11th May, 2011 with the

complaint of episode of Syncope two days earlier and

breathlessness. He was diagnosed for Neurocardiogenic Syncope,

Pituitary Adenoma-cystic IHD, Post CABG Status, HTN, Nasal

Polynosis, Cervical lumbar spondylosis etc. and as per his Discharge

Summary, his stay in the hospital was uneventful. He was advised

medication and physiotherapy. Besides that, the petitioner has also

placed on record a certificate dated 20 th June, 2011, purported to

have been issued by Dr. Jolly Bansal which is based upon the

medical record provided to him and not on the basis of physical

examination of the patient. This certificate does not even indicate

as to what medical record was shown to him. Therefore, much

reliance cannot be placed upon it.

9. The petitioner was sent to judicial custody on dismissal of his

bail application by the Trial Court. During his stay in jail, the

petitioner complained of medical problems. He was accordingly

sent to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital and G.B.Pant Hospital for

medical examination and treatment. As per the report of Board of

Doctors of G.B. Pant Hospital namely Dr. Vijay Trehan, Professor &

HOD Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Dr. Sanjeev Kathuria,

Assistant Professor, Department of Cardiology and Dr. Vivek

Chaturvedi, Assistant Professor, Department of Cardiology, the

petitioner was managed in the hospital conservatively with

continuation of his previous medication and he was discharged after

counselling him about his condition with advice for further follow up

in Cardiology and Neurosurgery outpatient department. MRI Brain

Scan of the petitioner was also conducted on 30th June, 2011 and the

latest status report submitted on the basis of said Brain Scan reads

thus:

"A medical board was constituted, as per the direction of honourable court to examine Mr. Karim Morani, in particular his MRI Scan report. The Board comprised of

1. Dr. Ajay Sharma HOD Dir. Prof. Of Neurosurgery

2. Dr. Vinod Puri Dir. Prof. Of Neurology

3. Dr. V.K. Trehan Prof. Of Cardiology.

The board met at 11.45 A.M. On 09.07.2011 in the Red Alert area as patient did not turn up till that time. The patient complained of experiencing episodes of momentary loss of consciousness, headache in the vertex area and increased frequency of micturition during night -time, during his stay in the jail. He had experienced palpitations and perspiration prior to the episodes of loss of consciousness. He had no history of seizures. He had no visual complaints. He had no history of nausea and vomiting.

On examination his pulse and blood pressure in the right arm in supine position were 72/min and 128/80 mm Hg, and 76/min and 122/86 mmHg respectively in standing position. There was no significant postural fall in blood pressure. There was no arrhythmia and his cardiovascular system examination was otherwise unremarkable.

A neurological examination revealed that he was conscious cooperative and well oriented in time and space. His cranial nerve examinations was normal and his fundii were normal. He had no pyramidal, cerebellar or any motor/sensory deficits. His gait was normal and rhomberg sign was negative.

There was no clinical evidence of any endocrine dysfunction. A Magnetic Resonance Imagine demonstrated a non-enhancing well defined pituitary micro-adenoma in the right side of the pituitary gland.

As per the Board, he has CAD, P/O CABG, normal left ventricular function, with pituitary micro-adenoma, a likely neurocardiogenic Syncope, along with anxiety.

He requires blood hormonal assays (ACTH, Prolactin, Cortisol, FSH, Growth hormone, Luteinizing hormone) along with plasma glucose and serum electrolytes to ascertain hormonal status so that the nature of the pituitary adenoma ( endocrine inactive or active and its type) can be made out. Depending upon these results, further management (whether medical or surgical) will be decided. From cardiological side, he has been advised to continue treatment and precautions as previously recommended at the time of his discharge on 24th June 2011 along with Tab. Alprax 0.25 mg 1 tablet twice daily".

10. On perusal of the report from the Board of Doctors of G.B.Pant

Hospital, the medical condition of the petitioner appears to be stable

and he has been advised to continue treatment and precautions as

recommended to him at the time of discharge from G.B.Pant

Hospital on 24th June, 2011. The report does not suggest that his

medical condition cannot be managed in jail hospital.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to

the current medical status report of the petitioner submitted by the

Board of Doctors constituted by the Medical Superintendent,

G.B.Pant Hospital. It is recorded in that report that when Head-up-

Tilt Test(HUTT) was being conducted, the petitioner became

unconscious with unrecordable blood pressure and slowing of pulse

to 47 beats/minutes, suggesting neurocardiogenic Syncope as the

cause, predominantly vasodepressor type. Learned counsel has

urged that such a situation can re-occur in jail and this may even

prove fatal.

12. I am not convinced with the aforesaid submissions. HUTT

procedure is an invasive procedure. Therefore, a possibility cannot

be ruled out that the complication in the medical condition of the

petitioner during HUTT test occurred only because of the invasive

nature of the procedure.

13. On careful consideration of the previous medical reports of the

petitioner and the medical reports received from the Board of

Doctors of G.B.Pant Hospital, it is apparent that since his detention

in jail, the condition of the petitioner is stable and it is being

properly managed by medication. Thus, I do not find it a fit case for

grant of interim bail on medical grounds, particularly when the

release of the petitioner for a period of 4-6 weeks would not change

his medical history or situation.

14. Application is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. Jail Superintendent concerned and the Medical Officer Incharge

of the Jail Hospital, however, are directed to ensure proper

treatment and monitoring the medical condition of the petitioner. It

is further directed that the petitioner may be provided with the

medical facilities as per the advice of the treating doctors at

G.B.Pant Hospital and in case of need, he may be transferred as in-

patient for seeking treatment.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE JULY 19, 2011 akb