Manipur High Court
The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... vs Yambem Ningthem Singh on 18 July, 2024
KHOIROM Digitally signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA SINGH AT IMPHAL
Date: 2024.07.18
DRA SINGH 17:52:02 +05'30'
CRIL. PETN. No. 19 of 2024
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), represented
by the Director, CBI, Plot No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO
Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
Yambem Ningthem Singh, aged about 69 Yrs., S/o (Late)
Y. Tombi Singh of Uripok Yambem Leikai, P.O & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur at present residing
at Mantripukhri Lamlongei, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur.
.... Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
For the petitioner : Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Senior PCCG
For the respondent : Mr. N. Ibotombi, Senior Advocate
Date of hearing : 02.05.2024 & 16.05.2024
Date of judgment &
order : 18.07.2024
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 1
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. N. Savitri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
[2] The present application has been filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the impugned order
dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Judge (P.C. Act), Imphal
West, Manipur in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 12 of 2024 (arising out of A.B.
No. 28 of 2017).
[3] The present petition has been filed by the CBI, who is
investigating the above referred case which was registered in CBI, STB,
New Delhi on 20.11.2019 u/s 420, 409, 406, 403, 120-B, 34 of IPC and
13(2) of PC Act, 13(1)(c) of PC Act, 1988 pursuant to the consent
accorded vide notification dated 11.09.2019 by the Govt. of India, DoPT
to CBI following the Notification No. 12/1(2)/2017- H(CBI)(MDS) dated
06.05.2019 of Govt. of Manipur, Home Department accorded its consent
to CBI for carrying out investigation into the two FIRs i.e. FIR No.
3(08)2017-VPS dated 07.08.2017 u/s 420, 403, 409, 120-B, 34 IPC and
13(1)(c) of PC Act against Sh. Y. Ningthem Singh, former Project Director
of Manipur Development Society and others, registered at Vigilance Police
Station, Manipur, Imphal on the basis of the complaint of Sh. Khuplen
Lhouvum, Addl. SP (Vig.), Manipur and FIR No. 244(9)2017 dated
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 2
01.09.2017 u/s 420, 406, 120- B, 409, 34 IPC and 13(2) of PC Act, 1988
against Shri. Y. Ningthem Singh, former Project Director of MDS, Shri.
D.S. Poonia, IAS, the then Chairman of MDS from30.06.2009 to
30.06.2013, Shri. O. Ibobi Singh, the then Chairman, MDS from
01.07.2013 to 31.08.2014, Shri. P.C. Lawmkunga, IAS, the then
Chairman of MDS from 01.09.2014 to 30.09.2015, Shri. O. Nabakishore
Singh, IAS, the then Chairman of MDS from 01.01.2015 to 06.07.2017
and Shri. S. Ranjit Singh, Administrative Officer, MDS, registered by
Imphal Police Station, Imphal West on the basis of complaint filed by Dr.
Th. Munindro Singh, Joint Secretary, Planning, Govt. of Manipur, which
were amalgamated as per orders of the Governor of Manipur issued vide
no. 12/1(2)/2017-H(CBI)(MDS) dated 25.04.2018, by the Govt. of
Manipur, Home Department.
[4] One, Dr. Th. Munindro Singh, Joint Secretary (Planning),
Government of Manipur lodged a complaint before the Officer-in- Charge,
Imphal Police Station on 01.9.2017 for registering case against the
respondent/accused namely, Y. Ningthem Singh, former Project Director
MDS and other co-accused persons alleging cheating, criminal conspiracy
and breach of trust, thereby causing loss to the tune of 1,84,42,11,478/-
to the public exchequer. Accordingly, CBI has registered a case being No.
RC DST/2019/A/0011 Regd. U/s 420, 409,406,403,120-B,34 IPC and 13
(2) of PC Act, 13 (1) (c) of PC Act, 1988.
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 3
Thereafter, an anticipatory bail was granted to all the
accused vide order dated 27.02.2020 by this Hon'ble High Court.
Subsequently, the respondent accused filed an application before the Ld.
Special Judge (P.C.), Imphal West praying to allow the present
respondent to travel abroad (Abu Dhabi), for 20 days for treatment of
Pancreatic Cancer and the same was granted by the Ld. Special Judge
(P.C) Imphal West, without considering the fact that, inter alia, despite
no document indicating that, the accused has been treated with cancer.
[5] The genesis leading to the filling of this Criminal Petition
are as follows:
On 02.02.2024, the respondent/accused filed a Criminal
Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2024 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C before the Ld.
Special Judge (PC Act), Imphal West, Manipur praying for granting
permission to leave India for 20 days from the date of order for medical
treatment at Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In that
regard, the petitioner (respondent in the Cril. Misc. Case No. 12 of 2024)
filed an objection to the Cril. Misc. Application praying to reject the
aforesaid application in the interest of justice.
After hearing both the parties, the Ld. Special Judge (PC),
Imphal West, Manipur, vide its order dated 07.02.2024, directed the
petitioner (CBI) (respondent in the Cril. Misc. Application) to place a
report/proposal before it for any possible arrangement in consultation
with appropriate authority, if in the event, consideration of the
petitioner's prayer, for treatment at Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE,
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 4
becomes a necessity. The petitioner (CBI) was also directed to highlight
possible arrangement for securing vigil over the respondent (petitioner in
the Cril. Misc. Application), during his stay at Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Accordingly, the petitioner (CBI) filed a written report pursuant to the
order dated 07.02.2024 praying for dismissing the aforesaid Cril. Misc.
Case No. 12 of 2024, after exploring all the possibilities of such
arrangement by CBI thereby taking up the matter with the International
Police Cooperation Unit i.e. IPCU, New Delhi.
After having perused all the documents placed on record
and after hearing the submissions of both the parties at length, vide order
dated 28.02.2024, the Ld. Special Judge (PC), Imphal West, Manipur
granted the prayer of the respondent (petitioner in the Cril. Misc.
Application) and he was allowed to leave India for a period of 20 days
from that day, on his furnishing Bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five laksh
only), which was to be deposited with the Nazir of Ld. Special Judge (PC),
Imphal West Manipur in cash, and to report back on 18.03.2024.
[6] As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amount
involved in the case, as per the FIR, is Rs. 518.69 Crores approx, and the
investigation of this case has so far revealed, that during the relevant
period, the respondent\accused is the Project Director of Manipur
Development Society (MDS) and Executive Head of MDS.
Further, the learned Sr. PCCG submits that after
investigation, the investigating agency has filed its first charge sheet in
this case before the Hon'ble Court of Special Judge (P.C.) Imphal West
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 5
against the Respondent accused U/s 120-B r/w Section 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and substantive offence punishable U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 for having caused an undue wrongful loss of Rs. 19.32 Crores
Approx. to the public exchequer and undue wrongful gain to himself in
criminal conspiracy with other accused persons in the matter of non-
execution of various projects in respect of which funds were released for
MDS by Secretariat Planning Department, Government of Manipur/Govt.
of India and the same were diverted at the behest of the accused
respondent and siphoned off.
[7] The learned senior PCCG further submits that the present
application filed by the respondent/accused before the Ld. Special Judge
(PC), Imphal West, Manipur for permission to travel to Abu Dhabi for a
period of 20 days for his treatment at Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE
stated that he is suspected to be having pancreatic cancer whereas as
per the earlier two applications filed by and dismissed by Ld. Trial Court,
he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. In view of the contradictory
stand in the applications of the respondent/accused, the petitioner (CBI)
made a prayer to the Ld. Trial Court that a board of doctors of AIIMS,
New Delhi may be constituted in order to ascertain whether the
respondent/accused is diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer or not and
whether he can be provided appropriate medical treatment for the same
in India or not.
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 6
[8] Ld. sr. PCCG further submits that one charge sheet has
already been filed against the respondent/accused and others in this case
and the further investigation of this case involving numerous projects is
at a very crucial stage and further looking to the desperation of the
respondent/accused to somehow leave the country, it is strongly
apprehend that if the respondent/accused is allowed to go abroad, he,
being the mastermind of this fraud, will never return to face the trial and
the remaining investigation and trail may be hampered.
[9] The learned senior PCCG further submits that as per order
dated 07.02.2024 of the Ld. Special Judge (PC), Imphal West, Manipur a
report was submitted before the Ld. Special Judge (PC), Imphal West,
Manipur stating that vide letter dated 12.02.2024 of the International
Police Cooperation Unit (IPCU), New Delhi, intimated in writing that in
the absence of any Extradition Request or Provisional Arrest request as
per Extradition Treaty between Government of the Republic of India and
the United Arab Emirates (UAE),the movements of the subject in UAE
would not normally be curtailed or monitored in UAE. Further, no
assurance could be provided that UAE Authorities would keep vigil over
the subject. Further, the matter may be consulted with MEA and MHA.
In view of the aforementioned communication from
National Central Bureau - India, Interpol New Delhi the petitioner (CBI)
informed the Ld. Trial Court that it will not be possible for CBI to make
arrangement for carrying out the medical treatment of the
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 7
Respondent/accused at Abu Dhabi because the said city is outside the
territorial jurisdiction of India.
[10] When the matter was taken up on 07.03.2024, the
proceeding of the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in Cril. Misc. Case No.
12 of 2024 by the Ld. Special Judge (PC), Imphal West, Manipur was
stayed till the next date of hearing.
For easy reference and for convenience, Para No. 18, 19 &
26 of the present Cril. Petn. are extracted herein below:
"18. That, the petitioner begs to submit that, the Respondent
accused is relying on the discharge certificate of Care and Cure
Hospital which has opined that best treatment can be given by
the US hospital which earlier treated him. However, it is an
interesting fact that there is no material on record to show that
the Respondent accused has earlier been treated by any US
Hospital including Cleveland Clinic as the enclosed schedule of
the said clinic which dates back to 30.04.2010 mentions the
name of department as Urology which does not appear to be the
department treating pancreatic disease which in this case should
be Gastroenterology.
19. That, the petitioner begs to submit that, even if it is assumed
for the sake of argument, that the Respondent accused was
diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer and underwent treatment for
the same in aforementioned USA Clinic in 2010, it is not clarified
as to what is the medical expertise of the said clinic in treating
pancreatic cancer which distinguishes itself from the medical
expertise in treating such disease as available in India.
..........
26. That, the petitioner begs to submit that, as per the
application filed before the Ld. Special Judge (PC), Imphal West,
the Respondent/accused stated that, he is suspected to be
having pancreatic cancer whereas as per the earlier two
applications filed by him and dismissed by Ld Trial Court, he was
diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. In view of the contradictory
stand in the applications of the accused, prayer was made to Ld.
Trail Court that a board of doctors of AIIMS, New Delhi may be
constituted in order to ascertain whether the Respondent
accused is diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer or not and whether
he can be provided appropriate medical treatment for the same
in India or not."
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 8
[11] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel submitted counter
affidavit on behalf of the respondent stating that till a Court of law has
given a finding that the accused is guilty of the charges levelled against
him, in the eye of law, it shall be presumed that the accused is still
innocent.
Learned senior counsel, further, submits that the deponent
filed a Misc. Case before the Ld. Special Judge (PC Act.), Imphal West,
Manipur seeking permission to leave the Country for his medical
treatment. The said Misc. Application was rejected by the Ld. Special
Judge mainly on the ground that the deponent has not pursued the
matter diligently. Another Misc. Application being Cril. Misc. Case No. 127
of 2023 was filed by the deponent for granting permission to leave India
for medical treatment and the Hon'ble Court, vide order dated
05.10.2023, dismissed the said Misc. Application only the ground that the
chronic pancreatitis is generally temporary in nature and the person will
often fully recover within a few days.
[12] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel further submitted
that the deponent purchased an Air Ticket and a boarding pass being
EK517 dated 05.03.2024 for medical treatment at Cleveland Clinic, Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. He, further, submits that the passport being
No. L9610484 dated 17.07.2014 issued at Guwahati in favour of the
deponent was seized at the Indian Immigration Control, Indira Gandhi
International Airport, New Delhi on 05.03.2024 on the ground that "DRIS
status of passport was impounded. Hence, the passport was seized and
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 9
sent to concern RPO through FRRO Delhi". Because of the seizure of the
passport, the deponent could not leave India for his medical treatment.
As the passport of the deponent was impounded, the deponent contacted
the Regional Passport Office at Guwahati and after processing the file, a
new Passport was issued in favour of the deponent. Because of the
seizure of the Passport and also in view of the order dated 07.03.2024
passed in M.C. (Cril. Petn.) No. 17 of 2024, the deponent could not leave
India for medical treatment at Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates.
[13] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel further submits
that the application filed by the deponent for seeking permission to leave
India for medical treatment at Cleveland Clinic was rejected by the Ld.
Special Judge (PC Act), Imphal West, Manipur, vide order dated
05.10.2023 in Cril. Misc. Case No. 127 of 2023 only on the ground that
acute chronic pancreatitis is generally temporary in nature and the person
will often fully recover within a few days. As the ailment of the deponent
has been diagnosed as Acute on Chronic Pancreatitis, Hepatic Encephalopathy
grade-I-Recovered, Decompesated CLD with Protal Hypertensionby the doctor
who attended the deponent, it is submitted that Pancreatic Cancer (PC)
is one of the most lethal decease with an incidence rate almost equal of
the rate of mortality Chronic Pancreatitis (CP) is a common chronic
inflammatory.
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 10
[14] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel further submits that it
is well settled that the right to travel abroad has been interpreted within
the scope of fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In Parvez Noordin Lokhandwall -Vs- State of
Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the right of an accused
to travel abroad is a valuable one and integral part of the right to personal
liberty. Further, it is well settled that an accused can be granted this
liberty on the ground of medical necessity, where they would be required
to travel abroad in order to obtain certain medical facilities and
treatments. Denial of travel, in such a scenario, cannot be refused as it
may be viewed to be prejudicial to the health of the accused.
He, further, submits that CBI did not challenge the order
dated 05/12/2023 passed in Cril. Misc. Case No. 213 of 2023 wherein,
the Ld. Special Judge (PC Act), Imphal West has given permission to the
applicant to leave India for foreign tour at Singapore and Malaysia.
[15] Ld. sr. PCCG submits written argument in support of his
case which is reproduced herein below:
"Main Grounds raised in the instant criminal petition are as
follows:-
1. Not a single document presented by him before the trial
Court to establish that he is diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
which he is suspecting based on the medical certificate of an
ordinary hospital called Care & Cure Hospital, Imphal.
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 11
2. No document is there to establish that he was earlier
treated at Cleveland Clinic USA for any disease including
pancreatic cancer.
3. That, not a single document to show that Cleveland Clinic
is having specialization to treat pancreatic cancer.
4. That, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that
the accused was treated at Cleveland Clinic, USA then what is
the guarantee that its Abu Dhabi is equally capable of treating
him with same amount of perfection.
5. That, contradictory stands taken by him regarding his
disease as in earlier applications, he was mentioning pancreatic
cancer and now, in the present case he is mentioning suspected
of such pancreatic cancer. His earlier two petitions were
dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court on the same grounds.
6. That, despite CBI giving to the Trial Court in writing that
CBI cannot maintain vigil over him in foreign land, the Ld. Trial
Court has directed CBI in its impugned order to ensure the same.
7. That, his disease which is in the realm of suspense can
be diagnosed by both doctors of AIIMS, New Delhi and
accordingly, his treatment can be done in India.
8. That, the accused cannot misuse/abused the bail granted
to him by the Court.
Referring to the above mentioned grounds, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reasonable
grounds/basis to leave India when the facilities for treatment of
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 12
pancreatic cancer is available in India and moreover, his
suspected disease of pancreatic cancer can be ascertain in India.
Involvement of accused in the present case in short :-
The amount involved in the case, as per the FIR is Rs.
518.69 crores approx. and the respondent accused was the
project Director and executive Head of MDS who, as the
mastermind of this scam, played a pivotal role in
misappropriation and siphoning of crores of Rupees of public
money which had been paid to MDS by various line Depts. For
execution of a number of projects, which were not
executed/partially executed. He also issued false utilization
certificate and false physical and financial progress reports in
respect of utilization of funds so received from line Depts. For
execution of the concerned projects.
The respondent/accused is the charge sheeted accused
No.1 in the first charge sheet filed in this case by CBI for having
caused an undue wrongful loss of Rs. 19.32 crores approx. to the
public exchequer and undue wrongful gain to himself in criminal
conspiracy with other accused persons in the matter of non
execution of various project in respect of which funds were
released for MDS by Secretariat planning Depts., Govt of
Manipur/Govt. of India and same were diverted at the behest of
the accused respondent through various accounts operated by
him and siphoned off."
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 13
[16] In Manoj Kumar Babulal Punamiya Vs. State of
Jharkhand Tr. Dir of Enforcement - [CRLMP. 5764/2014 in Petition(s)
for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4516/2012], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that -
"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant would submit
that the petitioner-herein is suffering from a serious disease.
According to him, the same can be treated only by the Stem Cell
Therapy. He further submits that such a therapy is not available
in our country. In aid of his assertion, he has produced several
documents issued by the doctors/hospitals wherein they
categorically state that the Stem Cell therapy for the said disease
that the petitioner/applicant is suffering, is not available in our
country.
We had given more and sufficient time to Shri R.S. Suri,
learned senior counsel for the respondent-agency to verify and
to inform us whether the aforesaid therapy is available in our
country or not. After verification, he submits that the Stem Cell
therapy can only be, as of now, used to treat the cancer patients
and not the disease that the petitioner/applicant is suffering
from.
The petitioner/applicant is facing trial under the Money
Laundering Act and the trial is in progress. Since the
petitioner/applicant is suffering from a serious ailment and the
Stem Cell Therapy to treat the aforesaid disease is not available
in our country, we permit the petitioner/applicant to go to
Singapore where the said Stem Cell Therapy is available with the
following conditions:
1. The petitioner/applicant shall be accompanied
by a Sub-Inspector of Police and two constables
named by the respondent-agency.
2. The names of the officers/officials
accompanying the petitioner/applicant will be
informed by the respondent-agency to the
petitioner/ applicant within a weeks' time from
today.
3. The petitioner/applicant shall bear the travel
expenses of the aforesaid officers/officials to
and fro Singapore.
4. The petitioner/applicant shall also take the
responsibility of boarding and lodging of the
accompanying officers/officials.
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 14
5. The petitioner/applicant shall purchase the
return tickets for himself and also for the
accompanying officers/officials before leaving
this country.
6. After the immigration check, the
petitioner/applicant shall handover his passport
to the Sub-Inspector of Police who
accompanies him.
7. The petitioner/applicant and accompanying
officers/officials shall leave India on 07.10.2014
and shall return back to India on 16.10.2014."
[17] In the instant case, the respondent/petitioner as well as the
medical documents filed therein failed to mention that the petitioner's
alleged medical condition i.e. Acute on Chronic Pancreatitis cannot be
treated inside the country. Further, failed to mention that as the disease
cannot be treated inside the country. The patient needs to go outside the
country where it can be treated.
[18] In (2020) 10 SCC 77 - [Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla V.
State of Maharashtra & Anr] (Para Nos. 19 & 26), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that -
"19. In Barun Chandra Thakur V. Ryan Augustine Pinto, this
Court restored a condition mandating that the respondent seek
prior permission from a competent Court for travel abroad. The
condition, which was originally imposed by the High Court while
granting anticipatory bail was subsequently deleted by it. This
Court made the following observations with respect to imposing
restrictions on the accused's right to travel: (SCC OnLine SC para
9)
"9 There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel
abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right
to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre-condition of
securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a
crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a
condition for the grant of anticipatory bail in this case....
At best, the condition for seeking permission before
travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted
altogether."
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 15
*********
26. We accordingly permit the appellant to do so, subject to his
furnishing in undertaking to this Court before the date of travel
that he will return to India after the expiry of a period of eight
weeks and that he shall be available on all dates of hearing
before the court of criminal jurisdiction, unless specifically
exempted from personal appearance. The undertaking shall be
filed in this Court before the appellant undertakes travel. On the
return of the appellant after eight weeks and if it becomes
necessary for him to travel to the US, the appellant shall apply
to the court concerned for permission to travel and any such
application shall be considered on its own merits by the
competent Court. The appellant shall travel only upon the grant
of permission and subject to the terms imposed. The passport of
the appellant shall be handed over to the appellant to facilitate
his travel, subject to the condition that he shall deposit it with
the investigating officer immediately on his return."
But, the respondent accused needs to take permission from
the Court before travelling abroad. It is the duty of the Court to see
whether permission sought for is reasonable/genuine or not.
[19] Heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused
the pleadings with the citations relied upon by the parties and the
documents filed therewith.
[20] It is settled principle of law that the right of the accused to
travel abroad is valuable one and integral part of the right to personal
liberty and this liberty can be granted on the ground of medical necessity
where they would be required to travel abroad in order to obtain certain
medical facilities and treatment. Denial of travel in such a scenario cannot
be refused as it may be viewed to be prejudicial to the health of accused
as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pervez Noordin
Lokhandwall -vs- State of Maharashtra.
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 16
[21] Here, the emphasis is given to "medical necessity which
would be required to travel abroad in order to obtain certain medical
facilities and treatment".
[22] This Court for this matter perused the medical documents
filed by the respondent and while doing so, this Court came across the
following medical documents:
(i) Scanned copy of appointment for treatment to
Cleveland Clinic, USA dated 30.04.2010.
Here, a perusal of this document finds that this is just an
appointment for treatment, nothing else.
(ii) Scanned copy of discharge copy with medication
advice of Max Health Care Hospital.
In that, it is found that in the case history portion, it was
written as "Acute on Chronic Pancreatitis". But, there is no mention of
either Cancer or advising the accused to go abroad for medical treatment
on the ground that in the concerned hospital or in the country, there is
no facility to treat the disease.
(iii) Scanned copy of discharge summary and certificate
issued by Raj Medicity, Imphal.
In that, it was mentioned "Acute on Chronic Pancreatitis"
without mentioning Cancer with medication advice. But, it does not
mention that the hospital has got no facility to treat the patient and not
advised for further treatment abroad.
(iv) Scanned copy of discharge certificate issued by Care
and Cure Hospital with medication advice and it is
also mentioned that -
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 17
(a) Condition and prognosis have been explained
to patient party and further referred to higher
centre where Gastroenterologist facility
available.
(b) As, patient Pancreas health condition is in
critical stage (Cancer Suspected).
(c) The best treatment can be understood by the
U.S. Hospital that treated him earlier.
Here, there is only mention of Cancer suspected and from
further perusal of the document, it is seen that there is no mention of the
respondent/accused requiring to go abroad as there is no facility available
in the hospital, but just an advice to treat at
Cleveland Clinic, U.S. where he was treated earlier.
Furthermore, a perusal of the documents mentioned above
filed by the respondent/accused, there is not even a single document
showing that the respondent/accused was actually treated in the
Cleveland Clinic, U.S.
(v) Scanned copy of an appointment slip for treatment
at Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi.
[23] On perusal of the above mentioned medical documents
submitted by the respondent/accused, it is observed that the documents
failed to show that the medical necessity to travel abroad in order to
obtain certain medical facilities and treatment let alone from the U.S.
Further, the documents failed to show that the disease (Acute on Chronic
Pancreatitis) of the respondent/accused cannot be treated in the country.
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 18
[24] In the facts and circumstances and observations made
above, the plea of the respondent/accused for allowing him to go to
Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi for medical treatment is not made out.
Accordingly, the order of the Ld. Trial Court dated 28.02.2024 passed by
the Ld. Special Judge (PC ACT), Imphal West is set aside and the present
Cril. Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. However, liberty is granted
to the respondent/accused to approach either this Court or Trial Court, if
there is new development regarding the medical issue of the
respondent/accused.
[25] Accordingly, the present Cril. Petition is allowed and
disposed of without costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Lucy/Bipin
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2024 Page 19
