9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der: 4. ............... In the FIR, the Appellant/Informant has stated that Respondent No. 1 fired upon his brother-in-law Vishnu from his revolver and thereafter Sombir also fired upon Vishnu. The other persons mentioned also opened fire indiscriminately leading to firearm injuries on several persons who were at the shop of the Appellant/Informant at that fateful time. ..................................... 5. ............................ Respondent No. 1 is indubitably a very influential person in the area, at the time of the incident he was an ex-MLA. Section 109 and Section 149, as envisaged under the Indian Penal Code have been cited. By Orders dated 23.1.2013, the Addl. Sessions Judge has, on a perusal of the police report and material documents, found existence of a prima facie case Under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, 307 read with Sections 149, 323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code against all the accused and in addition to this a prima facie case Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 109 Indian Penal Code and 25 of Arms Act against Balbir @ Bali, a prima facie case Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against Naresh and Rishi, a prima facie ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, thus there is no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed and fresh warrant of arrest of accused Balwan be issued, 7.12.2013. PWs present today stand discharged and would be summoned after procuring the presence of accused Balwan. Since there is non-compliance of the issuance of warrant of arrest against accused Balwan in view of the Order dated 24.10.2013 as passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, notice be given to SHO, Police Station Kalanaur as to why warrant of arrest of accused Balwan alias Balli have not been sent back to this Court either executed or unexecuted, for 7.12.2013. 05.02.2014 Present: Shri A.S. Kadian, Public Prosecutor for the State. Accused Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining accused on bail except accused Balwan, with counsel Shri O.P. Chugh, Advocate.............................. Warrant of arrest of accused Balwan received back unexecuted. Now fresh warrant of arrest of accused Balwan be issued through SP Rohtak for 15.03.2014. Notice to surety and identifier of accused Balwan alias Bali be also issued for the date fixed. 15.03.2014 Present: Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record their statements on 20.11.2013, no statements could be recorded in the absence of the accused. Further, on subsequent dates the accused in custody was produced but the Respondent consistently remained absent. Though he was represented by his Advocate, the record does not indicate whether the whereabouts of the Respondent were disclosed. In these circumstances, the present petition was filed in which notice was issued by this Court on 29.08.2014. Since the Respondent could not be served, fresh notice was ordered to be issued on 27.10.2014 to be served through the District Judge, Rohtak. The compliance report dated 15.01.2015 was forwarded by the District Judge, Rohtak whereafter this Court passed the following Order on 19.01.2015: In the present contempt petition also the Respondent has failed to enter appearance despite service of a notice issued by this Court. Our attention is drawn by learned Counsel for the Petitioner to an Order dated 14.05.2014 passed by the Trial Court who also appear to have issued non-bailable warrants against Respondent No. 1 which warrants also remain to be unserved despite several efforts. Be that as it may from the service report dated 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, and Dr. Munish Prabhakar, Medical Director, Privat Hospital, Gurgaon, who shall file an affidavit and explain why: (1) Respondent No. 1 has not been taken into custody despite an order of arrest and medical certificate dated 26th March, 2015 issued by the hospital which declares him asymptomatic. (2) The hospital has not formally discharged Respondent No. 1 if he is otherwise fit and does not require any further hospitalization. (3) The Medical Director shall also place on record details about the medical bills raised against Respondent No. 1 from the date of his admission till date and the amount paid towards the same by the patient or anyone on his behalf. 7. Pursuant to the Order dated 24.04.2015 an affidavit was filed by Dr. Munish Prabhakar, Medical Director, Privat Hospital, Gurgaon on 02.07.2015. Relevant portions of paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit were as under: 5. The patient had improved significantly symptomatically but required Angiography/Thallium scan for further management but never gave consent for that. He always refused consent and wanted conservative treatment. During the stay he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the SHO Police Station Kalanaur, Rohtak, Haryana. 7. That it is pertinent to mention here that on 21.02.2015, 27.02.2015 and 25.03.2015 Sh. Pawan Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak had also telephonically contacted Mr. R.N. Sharma, Administrative Officer and Dr. Prabhakar, Medical Director of the said hospital and requested them to discharge the accused Balbir @ Bali but no positive response was provided by the hospital authorities. 8. That accused Balbir @ Bali through his counsel served a legal notice dated 20.03.2015 upon SHO Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, Haryana (Supervisory Officer of Police Station Kalanaur) calling upon them not to harass him, who is a patient and further, if any harassment is caused they shall be personally responsible for the same. In the said notice it was mentioned that accused Balbir @ Bali, who was under regular treatment and was unable to appear in the court, was being unnecessarily harassed by the police. 9. That on 25.03.2015, the S.H.O., of Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana along with other police officials of the Police Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pervision accused Balbir @ Bali i.e. Respondent No. 1 could be brought to Rohtak and produced before the learned Court of concerned Magistrate, Rohtak. The local police tried its level best to arrest the accused by making sincere efforts but due to the above said circumstances, it could not succeed in arresting accused Balbir @ Bali i.e. Respondent No. 1. 13. That on 01.05.2015, accused Balbir @ Bali was formally discharged by the hospital authorities and thereafter, he was immediately arrested and produced before the learned Court of concerned Magistrate, Rohtak, Haryana, on very same day by a team of police officials headed by Sh. Pawan Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. The learned Court issued direction to the police that "before taking him to central jail, accused shall be medicolegally examined and if the Medical officer examining the accused feels any necessity of retaining him in the hospital, then it is for him to decide. In compliance of Order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the learned Court of ACJM, Rohtak, the accused was brought before Medical Officer of PGIMS, Rohtak, who after examining the accused admitted him in ICCU vide CR No. 342761 dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , CBI, New Delhi. In his report dated 18.09.2015 he summarized the matter as under: (4). Summary of the Enquiry Report is as follows: (a) Accused Balbir Singh is a heart patient and had undergone a treatment at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon as an indoor patient from 4.9.2013 to 10.9.2013 and as an outdoor patient on 17.9.2013 and 18.10.2013 i.e. prior to cancellation of his bail by this Hon'ble Court. (b) After this Hon'ble Court cancelled the bail of accused Balbir Singh on 24.10.2013, the accused got himself admitted in the said Hospital on 15.11.2013. (c) Accused Balbir Singh remained admitted in the said Hospital for a total 527 days on three occasions viz. from 15.11.2013 to 25.12.2013 for 41 days, from 31.12.2013 to 9.04.2014 for 100 days and from 11.04.2014 to 1.05.2015 for 386 days, respectively. (d) Accused Balbir Singh did not give his consent for Angiography as suggested by the doctors during his admission in the said Hospital, and requested for Conservative Treatment through medicines which was agreed to by the doctors. (e) Accused Balbir Singh was not required to remain admitted in the said Hospital for such a long pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice in writing that accused Balbir Singh was fit to be taken to Court but did not discharge him. (o) It appears that Rohtak Police came to know about accused Balbir Singh being admitted in the said Hospital on 8.02.2015, but arrested the accused only on 1.05.2015. (p) The stand of Rohtak Police that accused could not be arrested as he was not discharged by the said Hospital does not hold substance. (q) Certain inconsistencies have been found in the affidavit filed by Rohtak Police. The details are mentioned in Para 3(x) at Page Nos. 12 and 13 of this Enquiry Report. 11. The Enquiry Report also dealt with the efforts made by local police to locate and arrest the Respondent and reported as under: (viii). NBWs and Efforts made by local police to locate and arrest accused Balbir Singh This Hon'ble Court had rejected the bail of accused Balbir Singh on 24.10.2013 and directed him to surrender forthwith. Accused Balbir Singh did not comply with the Order of this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the Trial Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, Haryana issued various non-bailable warrants of arrest against accused Balbir Singh on 08.11.2013, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 12.01.2015, whereafter the matter was entrusted to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Meham, Rohtak. He further stated that he became aware of the admission of the Respondent in Privat Hospital, Gurgaon on 16.02.2015. He thereafter undertook steps to ensure that the Respondent did not escape and deployed a guard at the hospital since 16.02.2015 right till 01.05.2015 when the Respondent was finally discharged from the hospital. The affidavit further stated that soon after the enquiry report of CBI a fact finding probe to fix the responsibility/negligence/connivance on part of police officials who dealt with process of service of non-bailable warrant against the Respondent was undertaken. Pursuant to the enquiry report dated 07.12.2015, vide Memo Nos. 2145, 2146, 2147 and 2148 all dated 07.12.2015, necessary action was recommended against certain police officials. 14. A reply affidavit was also filed by Dr. K.S. Sachdev on 07.01.2016. It was submitted that the hospital came to know that the Respondent was required in a criminal case only on 13.02.2015. However, the affidavit did not disclose why even after 13.02.2015 the Respondent-contemnor was not discharged. The affidavit state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2013 and repeated non-bailable warrants issued by the Trial Court. 17. The Order passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013 shows that an affidavit of son of the Respondent was filed along with a copy of review petition. The application seeking exemption was rejected by the Trial Court and SHO concerned was issued notice why the warrant of arrest was not executed. Subsequent Orders dated 05.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and 15.04.2014 indicate that fresh warrants of arrest were issued through Superintendent of Police. Neither the Respondent surrendered to custody as directed by this Court nor the concerned police took any steps to arrest him or try to find his whereabouts. No report was made to the Trial Court. What is evident is total inaction on the part of the police which helped the Respondent in evading the arrest and defeating the Orders passed by this Court as well as by the Trial Court. This callous attitude and conduct of the police calls for strict administrative actions and corrective penal measures. 18. The conduct exhibited by the Respondent in getting himself admitted in the hospital when there was no medical reason to justify such admission and in continuing to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udge, Rohtak on 15.01.2015 indicated admission of the Respondent in a hospital, this Court by Order dated 19.01.2015 called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. The enquiry initiated thereafter resulted in recording of the statement of son of the Respondent on 08.02.2015 who also produced medical certificate dated 07.02.2015. This certificate issued by Privat Hospital shows that the Respondent was likely to be discharged in next 5 to 7 days. Significantly, said certificate was not even referred to in any of the subsequent affidavits filed by Dr. Munish Prabhakar or Dr. K.S. Sachdev. If the Respondent was likely to be discharged in few days as certified on 07.02.2015 what went wrong in not discharging him or was there any medical emergency justifying his continued admission? Nothing is spelt out in any of the affidavits. As a matter of fact, the subsequent certificate dated 26.03.2015 did not even speak of likelihood of discharge and used the expression ".........he is fit to be produced in the Court of law as per present health condition." The assertions made by Shashank Anand in his affidavit dated 02.07.2015 are that notwithstanding issuance of such certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se medical professionals are responsible for such prolonged admission which was actuated by only one reason which was to extend medical asylum to the Respondent as a cover to defeat the orders passed by this Court and the Trial Court. In this process, these medical professionals not only helped the Respondent in violating the Order of this Court but they also obstructed administration of justice. 23. The aforementioned conclusions then raise issues regarding the extent of liability of the contemnors. Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which define 'civil contempt' and 'criminal contempt' are as under: (b) "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court; (c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or ten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word, but that he has been aiding and abetting others in setting the Court at defiance, and deliberately treating the order of the Court as unworthy of notice. If he has so conducted himself, it is perfectly idle to say that there is no jurisdiction to commit him for contempt as distinguished from a breach of the injunction, which has a technical meaning. A motion to commit a man for breach of an injunction, which is technically wrong unless he is bound by the injunction, is one thing; and a motion to commit a man for contempt of court, not because he is bound by the injunction by being party to the cause, but because he is conducting himself so as to obstruct the course of justice, is another and a totally different thing. The difference is very marked. In the one case the party who is bound by the injunction is proceeded against for the purpose of enforcing the Order of the Court for the benefit of the person who got it. In the other case, the Court will not allow its process to be set at naught and treated with contempt. B] In Z Ltd. v. A (1982) 1 All ER 556 the Plaintiff had obtained injunction against certain Defendants and the assets of one such Defendant agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the interlocutory injunctions restraining publication of the material pending trial of such action was granted against those two newspapers, three other newspapers published extensive extracts and summaries of the book following which proceedings for criminal contempt against them were brought by the Attorney General. At the trial of those proceedings those three other newspapers were held to be guilty of criminal contempt. Lord Brandon of Oakbrook concluded as under: ..................The claims of the Attorney General in the confidentiality actions were for permanent injunctions restraining the Defendants from publishing what may conveniently be called Spycatcher material. The purpose of the Millet injunctions was to prevent the publication of any such material pending the trial of the confidentiality actions. The consequence of the publication of Spycatcher material by the publishers and editor of the Sunday Times before the trial of the confidentiality actions was to nullify, in part at least, the purpose of such trial because it put into the public domain part of the material which it was claimed by the Attorney General in the confidentiality actions ought to remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and therefore appropriate production warrant shall be issued under the signature of Registrar of this Court ensuring presence of the Respondent before this Court. The concerned police is directed to facilitate such production of the Respondent. The contemnors can also present their views and make appropriate submission in writing on or before December 23, 2016. 27. Coming to the role of the police officials in the present matter, we have already observed that the conduct exhibited by the concerned police officials in not ensuring compliance of the Orders passed by the Trial Court calls for strict administrative action. The actions in that behalf have already been initiated and for the present we rest content by observing that the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken to logical end and the guilty shall be brought to book. We request the Director General of Police of Haryana and the Home Secretary to look into the matter and ensure that the departmental proceedings are taken to logical end at the earliest. The status report/action taken report in that behalf shall be filed in this Court within three months from the date of this judgment. 28. As regards the role of Mr. Shanshan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
