Undertrial Dies Awaiting Medical Bail: P&H High Court Pulls Haryana Govt Counsel For 'Misleading Court'

Following the demise of an undertrial awaiting medical bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court flagged the failure of Haryana government who made "misleading submissions" before the Court.

The accused was referred to Gurugram's Artemis hospital on request of family members. However the State counsel submitted that his condition is "stable" and did not require hospitalisation. Conflicting medical reports were produced before the Court, consequently the accused was transferred to PGI Chandigarh and the Court directed the hospital to form a medical board to evaluate his condition. However, before report could be submitted, the accused passed away.

The Court also found that it was "misled" by the State counsel who made the court believe that during the pendency of the present bail plea, another bail was filed by an advocate in the trial court.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed, "In the present case, the learned State counsel regrettably failed in this fundamental duty. The misleading representation made before this Court not only cast unwarranted aspersions on an Advocate but also raised unfounded concerns about the functioning of the trial Court. Such erroneous assertions created unnecessary suspicion and sensationalism, thereby undermining the dignity and credibility of the judicial process."

The Court highlighted that after the accused was referred to hospital on January 21, the State counsel on January 24, submitted that "the medical condition of the petitioner was stable and he did not require further hospitalization" and report of the doctor from the same hospital was also placed on record.

However, senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that the medical condition of the petitioner was far from stable, as was evident from the medical reports concerning the petitioner given by the doctors at Civil Hospital, Gurugram and PGIMS Rohtak.

Opposing the plea, the State counsel submitted that the petitioner was completely stable and, therefore, not entitled to bail, let alone interim bail.

State counsel also asserted that the petitioner's family was pressing for his continuous hospitalization solely for insurance-related reasons and that the request for further hospitalization was merely a pretext. The report was challenged by the petitioner's counsel.

In the light of the conflicting medical opinions presented before the Court regarding health of the petitioner, the senior counsel for the petitioner was given two options: to transfer the petitioner either to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi or Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) Chandigarh.

The senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, opted for PGIMER Chandigarh where the petitioner was subsequently hospitalized pursuant to the orders of the Court passed on the same day ( January 24).

The Court also asked to constitute the the Medical Board to constitute a board  to submit a report on his health condition. The Board found that the petitioner was indeed suffering from certain medical ailments and sought additional time to evaluate his condition before submitting a detailed report.

"However, unfortunately, before the report could be submitted the petitioner expired," the judge stated in the order.

Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the State had intentionally raised the issue of a second bail application being filed by the petitioner so as to create hurdles in the way of the petitioner from getting interim bail.

He drew the Court's attention to a letter of District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), who advised an advocate namely Prashant Yada to file the bail application of the petitioner.

The Court observed that, "Despite being an integral part of the second bail application filed before the learned trial Court at Gurugram, this letter was not disclosed, even though it was annexed...to the said bail application."

Justice Kaul said that "What is even more troubling is, that when confronted, the learned State counsel belatedly acknowledged and admitted failure, though sought to justify the same as an “inadvertent failure” to examine a crucial annexure for which he tendered apology."

The judge added that, the explanation given for not showing the letter of DLSA, "is both unconvincing and unacceptable, particularly because the misrepresentation was not voluntarily corrected but was admitted only after the falsity of the submissions was exposed through the intervention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and on perusal by this Court of the summoned records."

"Such conduct goes beyond mere oversight; it constitutes a grave dereliction of duty and a breach of prosecutorial responsibility," the Court observed.

The Court directed to send the copy of the order to Advocate General, Haryana for information.

Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Jain, Mr. Anmol Chandan, Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Mr. Harshit Singla & Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent/State.

Title: Subhash Chander Dutt v. State of Haryana