Mr. K. Ramakrishna vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 5940 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5974/2023
BETWEEN:

1.    MR. K. RAMAKRISHNA
      S/O LATE SRI KRISHNAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
      PRESIDENT
      SRI GURU RAGHAVENDRA
      SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA, AND
      SRI GURU SARVABHAUMA SOUHARDA
      CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD., AND
      DIRECTOR,
      M/S. MUKHYAPRANA AGRO FRAMING
      AND RESEARCH INFO PVT. LTD.,
      M/S. GRAVITY LEGAL COMPANY
      NO.64, 3RD FLOOR, 41ST CROSS,
      3RD MAIN, JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK,
      BANGALORE - 560 070.                 ... PETITIONER

   (BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
            SRI RAVI KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.    THE UNION OF INDIA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. DIRECTOR,
      DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
      BENGALURU ZONE OFFICE,
      3RD FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK, BMTC,
      SHANTHINAGAR, TTMC KH ROAD,
      BENGALURU - 560 027.                 ... RESPONDENT
                                   2



            (BY SRI A.R.L.SUNDARESHAN, ASG FOR
                 SRI M.UNNIKRISHNAN, CGSC)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON INTERIM BAIL FOR A
PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS ON MEDICAL GROUNDS ENABLING HIM
TO TAKE BETTER TREATMENT IN ANY OF THE PRIVATE
HOSPITALS    IN   BENGALURU     IN   SPL.C.C.NO.780/2022
(ECIR/BGZO/9/2020) PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS COURT AT BENGALURU U/S 3 R/W 4 OF PML
ACT.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.08.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and counsel for

the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution that

is Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal office, Bengaluru

that one Sri.A.Santhosh Kumar, CEO of Sri Guru Raghavendra

Sahakara Bank Niyamith, Bengaluru lodged a complaint before

the Banasawadi Police Station, Bengaluru for the commission of

misappropriation of the funds and fraud and upon filing of the

complaint, the Banaswadi police have registered a case in

Cr.No.69/2020 for the offences punishable under Section

406,420,409,120B R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and

under Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of

Depositors in Financial Establishment Act. This petitioner was

arrested by the Bengaluru police on 14.02.2022 and on the

completion of the investigation, they have filed a charge sheet in

Criminal Case No. 28892/2021, now pending on the file of

Hon'ble I ACMM Court at Bengaluru.

3. In the meantime, the respondent Directorate of

Enforcement has registered a case in ECIR/BGZO/9/2020 against

the petitioner and others for the alleged offences punishable

under Section 3 R/w 4 of PML Act, 2022. Based on the said

complaint, the Trial Court took the cognizance of the said

offences and registered the case and after the investigation filed

the final complaint before the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.780/2022.

4. It is contended that the allegations made in the

prosecution papers are that petitioner being the head of the Sri

Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamith and along with

other accused conspired together and created bogus/fake

deposits by debiting loans and advances of FDs and loans

against FDs were sanctioned without having FDs. The loan

documents were not found in respect of 80876 loans amount

into Rs.1,544.43 crores and same was found without any

securities and it is further alleged that they have sanctioned the

loans to various beneficiaries without RBI directions issued on

01.07.2015. Further it is alleged that the petitioner and other

accused were responsible for the loans of Rs.1,556 crores and

bank did not have any KYC documents for 8039 customers

accounts etc.,

5. It is also contended that in the petition that the

petitioner had moved the bail application under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C before the Trial Court and same was dismissed on

07.03.2022 and thereafter he had approached this Court and

filed Crl.Misc.No.12561/2022 and said petition also came to be

dismissed by this Court on merit on 24.06.2022, challenging the

same, SLP No.8032/2022 filed before the Apex Court and same

was dismissed on 16.09.2022. Thereafter the petitioner has

approached the Trial Court on 21.01.2023 and sought for regular

bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C on medical grounds and same

was rejected by the Court on 06.06.2023.

6. The petitioner in the present petition has contended

that he is suffering from various ailments more particularly heart

ailment, even today he is under medication, since he is in

judicial custody, he could not get proper medical attention in jail

hospital, he requires immediate medical treatment at reputed

private hospital for heart ailment. The medical documents are

also produced as Annexure-A to G and has not filed any other

petition for seeking the same relief.

7. The counsel would vehemently contend in his

argument that petitioner is aged about 72 years and suffering

from various illness for the past several years more particularly

heart ailment, previously he has suffered multiple heart attacks

and admitted in Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular, Bengaluru

on 01.11.2016. On 18.09.2019 he got admitted to the Apollo

hospital for heart ailments. In the year 2019 doctor

Girish.B.Navasundi attached to legends heart centre had opined

that LVEF of the petitioner is 35% (normal rate is 55%). On

15.02.2020, it was opined that LV function decreased to 40% to

30% of petitioner as such implantation of CRT-D (pace maker) is

necessary. Further on 01.06.2020, the legends heart centre gave

same opinion and the reports of the said hospital shows that LV

(Left Ventricle) moderate LV systolic dysfunction. On 08.07.2021

the petitioner underwent Echocardiogram test at legends heart

centre, Bengaluru. The report indicates that moderate LV systolic

and grade-I LV diastolic dysfunction.

8. The counsel would vehemently contend that the

petitioner is a cardiac patient needs immediate medical attention

by the well known cardiologist and further multiple medical

opinions indicates that the petitioner requires early implantation

CRT-D and it is a life saving measure to reduce the risk of

sudden cardiac death, as such the petitioner requires immediate

treatment at well known private hospital having better facilities.

The health condition of the petitioner indicates that he is a sick

person and entitled for bail under Section 45(1) of the PML Act

also; without touching the merit of the case, the petitioner

seeking bail on medical and humanitarian grounds for a period of

6 months, enabling him to take better treatment at any of the

private hospitals in Bengaluru. The petitioner is ready to abide

by any conditions that may be imposed and hence he may be

enlarged on bail.

9. This bail petition is resisted by filing detailed

statements of objections filed by the respondent, re-iterating

allegations made in the final complaint filed against the

petitioner, regarding medical ground is concerned, contend that

he would not get proper medical attention in jail hospital is not

true and correct. The records discloses on examining the

documents produced by the petitioner, they are all pertaining to

the year 2019 and 2020, some prescriptions are subsequently

and those shows that they were ailments which existed even

before the petitioner was arrested. In fact, Courts while rejecting

the applications for bail have considered the issue in the medical

angle of the petitioner and after filing the petition that the

petitioner was involved in a major fraud, the Court has dismissed

the bail petition. The jail authorities can provide a better

treatment what he has sought. Even referred the patient to the

specialized hospital like Jayadeva hospital etc., and the said

hospital is a reputed one, the petitioner health is well taken care

of. The level of sickness does not involve danger of life and bail

cannot be granted bail on medical ground. The records produced

by the petitioner only shows that he is undergoing some

treatment of heart ailment. The document which are produced

are also of the year 2016, 2019 to 2022 and he can be

adequately treated in the Jayadeva Hospital and hence not made

out any ground.

10. The counsel in support of his argument he also relied

upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in

SLP.No.8032/2022, wherein the Apex Court dismissed the same

that High Court has rightly refuse to release the petitioner on

bail. The counsel also relied upon the order passed by the Trial

Court which is recently dismissed on 6th day of April-2022 and

also brought to notice of earlier order passed by this Court in

Crl.P.No.2561/2022 and this Court elaborately discussed the

gravity of the offence and referred the judgment of Ramendu

Chatopadyaya case which is aptly applicable to the case on

hand and dismissed the same.

11. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the

Apex Court National Investigation Agency V/s Zahooor

Ahmad Shah Watali reported in (2019) 5 SCC 1 wherein in

the judgment an observation is made when the accused sought

the bail on the medical ground, taken note of the fact that

medical care as and when demanded, the same can be provided

in the Government Hospital and also from AIIMS and special

Court had also directed jail Superintendent to provide proper

medical care as requested.

12. The counsel also relied upon the judgment report in

State of UP V/s Gayatri Prasad Prajapati in

Crl.A.No.686/2020 and apex Court in this judgment also set

aside the impugned order of the High Court and held that there

was no satisfaction recorded by the High Court that the

treatment offered to the respondent is not adequate and he

requires further treatment by any particular medical institute for

which it is necessary to release the respondent and interim bail

on medical grounds and High Court without considering the

entire materials on record has passed the impugned order which

is unsustainable.

13. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported

in State through Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special

Branch, Delhi V/s Jaspal Singh Gill in SLP No.1543/1984 and

brought to notice of this Court at paragraph No.9 and 10 and

also 11 wherein an observation is made that High Court should

not have enlarged the respondent on bail in larger interests of

the State. It is urged that respondent is a person who has

undergone a cardiac operation and needs constant medical

attention and further observed that the prison authorities would

arrange for proper treatment of the respondent whenever the

need for it arises.

14. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in case of

Pawan V/s Ram Prakash Pandey and others RP No.

1561/2001 and brought to notice of this Court in paragraph No.9

and 10 where the Court has discussed that allegations of ailment

of the applicant are not specifically denied, the respondent No.2

can always apply jail authorities to see that he gets the required

treatment.

15. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in case of

State V/s Sardool Singh and others and brought to notice of

this Court at paragraph No.4, 9 and 10 wherein also an

observation is made that the larger interest of the public, the

report of the medical board has to be taken note of. I cannot

allow the said respondent to remain on bail and cancel the bail of

the respondent and direct him to surrender to his bail bond.

16. The counsel also relied upon the order passed by this

Court in Crl.P.No.4321/2014 dated 05.08.2014 wherein also the

Court comes to the conclusion that the involvement of the

accused clearly discloses prima facie material.

17. In reply to the arguments, the counsel for the

petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner has not

sought regular bail. The bail is sought for the limited period of 6

months. Even a purposive interpretation of the proviso Section

45(1) PML Act, 2002 shows that it has been incorporated as a

lenient provision and to afford relaxation to the sick or infirm

person as noted in the statement of objections and reasons to

PML Act, thus a legislature has carved out an exception

empowers the special Court to grant bail on humanitarian

grounds to a person who is under the age of 16 years or is a

women or is a sick or is a infirm. The petitioner is suffering from

Ischemic heart disease, severe left ventricle systolic dysfunction.

He is also suffering from Acute Coronary Syndrome, Systemic

Hypertension, Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and he requires CRT-D

cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantation of an

automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (AICDs) and he

use to take almost 15 tablets and he is suffering from serious

ailments which have a chance of escalation and Doctors may

also advised to undergo surgery in case if he does not respond

to a medicines prescribed to him. Hence, he may be enlarged on

bail.

18. The counsel in support of his argument he relied

upon the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to

Appeal(Crl.) No.8836/2023 wherein discretion has been

exercised, the petitioner be released on interim bail on medical

ground for 2 months with conditions.

19. The counsel also relied upon the order passed by the

Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No.5590/2023

wherein also an interim order is granted to provide a treatment

in the facility chosen by the respondent.

20. The counsel also relied upon the judgment Sameer

Mahandru V/s Directorate of Enforcement

Crl.M.A.No.10859/2023 passed by the Delhi High Court and

brought to notice of this Court granting of bail for a period of 6

weeks and also paragraph No.50 held that health condition of a

human being deserves utmost importance and right to health is

one of the most significant dimensions of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. Every person has a right to get himself

adequately and effectively treated. The exercise of distinction of

grant of bail is not to be exercised only as a last resort rather

freedom is a cherished fundamental right.

21. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of Delhi

High Court Sanjay Jain Vs Enforcement Directorate bail

application No.3807/2022 wherein also discussed with regard to

protection of rights and personal liberty in paragraph No.21 held

that the said right cannot be curtailed "except according to

procedure established by law". However, right to health is also

recognized as an important facet of Article 21 of the

Constitution. Merely because a person is an under Trial or for

that matter even a convict, lodged in jail, this facet of right to

life cannot be curtailed. It remains an obligation of the state to

provide adequate and effective medical treatment to every

person lodged in jail, whether under trial or convict.

22. The counsel also relied upon the judgment Kewal

Krishna Kumar V/s Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC

Online Del 1574 and brought to notice of this Court at

paragraph No.18 wherein an observation is made with regard to

proviso to Section 45(1) shows that it has been incorporated as

a lenient provision or to afford 'relaxation' to a sick or infirm

person as noted in the statement of objects and reasons to

PMLA.

23. The counsel also relied upon the judgment Vijay

Aggarwal through Parokar V/s Directorate of

Enforcement, 2022 SCC online Del 4494 and brought to

notice of this Court at paragraph No.15 wherein Article 21 of the

constitution not only gives a fundamental right to live but the

right to live with dignity. The counsel by referring these

judgments would vehemently contend that the petitioner may be

enlarged on bail for a period of 6 months in order to take the

treatment.

24. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

counsel for respondent i.e., ASG for respondent counsel for

Sri.M.Unnikrishnan, CGSC for respondent, the point that would

arise for the consideration of this Court are:

1) Whether the petitioner has made out any ground to enlarge him on bail for a period of 6 months for medical treatment?

2) What order?

25. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also the

counsel for respondent and also considering the gravity of

accusation made against the petitioner, this Court earlier in

Crl.No.2561/2022 vide order dated 24.06.2022 dismissed the

petition on merit in coming to the conclusion that the judgment

of Apex Court in Ramendu Chattopadhyay's case is aptly

applicable to the case on hand. The order was challenged before

the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.8032/2022, the Apex Court also

held that the High Court has rightly refused to release the

petitioner on bail and we are completely agree with the same.

26. It is also not in dispute that subsequently the

petitioner has also approached the Trial Court by filing an

application in Spl.C.No.780/2022 and same was rejected on

06.04.2023 and thereafter he has approached this Court by filing

the present petition.

27. The main contention urged in the petition is that he

is suffering from Ischemic heart disease and other ailments and

also brought to notice of this Court Article 21 of the Constitution

of India that his right to health cannot be curtailed and also

brought to notice of this Court a purposive interpretation of the

proviso Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 shows that it has been

incorporated as a lenient provision or to afford relaxation to a

sick and infirm person as noted in the statement of objections.

In keeping the said contention, this Court also to consider the

principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by the

counsel ASG for the respondent and National Investigation

Agency judgment referred supra, held that the Court has to

evaluate the nature of illness of the petitioner and also in the

other judgments also the Apex Court cancelled the bail in coming

to the conclusion that the High Court has not applied its mind in

considering the gravity of the offence and gravity of the ailment.

No doubt the judgments referred by the petitioner's counsel i.e.,

the Apex Court in the two judgments referred supra granted

interim bail on medical ground and the judgments of Delhi High

Court referred by the petitioner's counsel, this Court has to

consider the same. The documents which have been produced

before the Court by the petitioner has rightly pointed out by the

counsel for the respondent that these documents of Jayadeva

Hospital dated 05.11.2016 and also the medical records of the

year 2019 and also the assessment with regard to the decreased

LV function from 40% to 35%, the patient is having worsening

chronic heart failure despite revascularization and optimal

medical management. Therefore, he requires early implantation

of CRT-D and the said was the report of the year 2020 i.e.,

15.02.2020 and the fact that this petitioner was arrested in 2022

and the said advice was made in 2020 itself.

28. It is also important to note that earlier also the

petitioner took treatment on 22.12.2020 prior to his arrest with

Girish.B.Navasundi and echocardiogram report also dated

22.12.2020. The other echocardiogram report dated 08.07.2021

and same is also prior to his arrest and report is moderate LV

systolic dysfunction.

29. It is also important to note that this Court also

directed the jail authority to get the report and the counsel for

respondent vide memo dated 27.07.2023 submitted the medical

records of the accused for kind perusal of this Court and those

documents reveals with regard to the earlier medical records of

the year 2016 and 2019. Thereafter, after his arrest he was

taken to Prince Hospital and also taken to Jayadeva Hospital on

30.09.2022 and found that mildly reduced LV function EF 50%,

trivial mitral regurgitations, no obvious slot. He was advised to

continue medications. No doubt he is aged about 73 years,

earlier admitted to Prince Hospital and he was on regular

medication for Ischemic heart disease. He is advised

implantation of CRT-D as a life saving measure by the senior

consultant and interventional cardiologist, Apollo hospital to

reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death and to improve the

cardiac function and this advise was made in 2020 itself and

rightly pointed out by the counsel for respondent that he would

take such treatment in the Jayadeva Hospital and the same is

known hospital for heart ailment and there is no recent medical

examination report and the recent medical report is 30.09.2022.

The records also reveal that when he was arrested on

18.02.2022, he made all efforts to get the bail and approached

the Trial Court, this Court as well as the Apex Court.

30. Having consider the gravity of the offence and nature

of accusation that this petitioner being a Chairman of the said

bank indulged in committing the breach of trust and PMLA

offences i.e., fraud to the tune of 1,544 crores of rupees and the

same is money invested by the general public and taken note of

the gravity of the offence and comes to the conclusion that the

petitioner has not made out any ground to enlarge him on bail.

Now, come up with ailment of heart disease and same was also

urged before this Court and also before the Trial Court and same

was observed by the Trial Court while rejecting the application.

This Court has also in detail taken note of the gravity of the

offence. No doubt he is aged about 73 years and same cannot be

a ground to enlarge him on bail and the said treatment can be

provided even in Jayadeva Hospital and jail authorities also can

taken him to Jayadeva hospital in the month of September-2022

and this Court also earlier considered the grounds of medical

ailment in paragraph No.8 of the order that he is aged about 71

years and suffering from heart ailment and undergone surgery.

The said ground has been urged earlier also.

31. This Court while rejecting the application taking into

note of the said ground rejected the same and no any further

treatment records except taking him to hospital in the month of

September-2022 to Jayadeva Hospital wherein also advised

medication and he can continue medication, if he really desires

the treatment in any other private hospital as contended by the

petitioner, he can be taken to private hospital by the jail

authorities and treatment can be provided to him at the cost of

the petitioner. No ground is made out to enlarge him on bail for

a period of 6 months as contended by the petitioner's counsel

and I have perused the medical records, no doubt he is having

heart ailment from 2016 and no doubt the principles laid down in

the judgments also clear that the Court can take note of the

health of the petitioner whether he is an under Trial prisoner or

convict and same also to be taken care of. The jail authority can

take care of the said ailment of the petitioner by taking him to

Jayadeva hospital and if the petitioner desires, he can be taken

to private hospital at his choice and jail authority is directed to

take him to hospital for his treatment as contended by the

petitioner and no ground is made out to release him on bail for a

period 6 months as contended by the petitioner and Hence, I

pass the following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.

The jail authorities are directed to take him to Jayadeva

Hospital for appropriate treatment. If the petitioner desires to

take treatment in private hospital, the jail authority is directed to

take him to private hospital and the petitioner can take the

treatment in the private hospital at his cost under the

supervision of the jail authority.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RHS