The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rejected third bail plea of Ghosi Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MP Atul Rai.
A Single Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai.
This is the third bail application moved by the applicant, who has been arraigned in Case under Sections 120-B, 167, 195-A, 218, 306, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow.
The first bail application was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of the Court on merits by means of the order dated 07.06.2022.
The second bail application was also rejected by a Coordinate Bench of the Court on merits by order dated 14.03.2023.
The third bail application has been filed primarily on account of the medical condition of the applicant.
The facts of the case are that,
(a) An F.I.R was registered against the accused-applicant being FIR under Sections 376, 420, 406, 506 I.P.C at Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi on a complaint made by the victim, who later on attempted to commit suicide along with her friend within the precincts of the Supreme Court of India on 16.08.2021. The victim and her friend both were admitted in very serious and critical condition in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi and later during treatment died on 21.08.2021 and 24.08.2021, respectively.
(b) On 10.11.2020, the victim is said to have given an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi alleging that co-accused- Amitabh Thakur, an Ex IPS officer was manufacturing false documents/evidence against the victim and her friend to favour the applicant. The victim and her friend-Satyam Prakash Rai, thereafter, on 16.08.2021 attempted a suicide outside the Supreme Court and went live on Facebook making serious allegations against the accused-applicant and co- accused-Amitabh Thakur and various other authorities.
(c) The Director General of Police constituted a Two Member Committee consisting of Director General, U.P Police Recruitment and Promotional Board and Additional Director General, Women and Child Security Organization, Lucknow. The said Committee submitted its report on 27.08.2021. On the basis of said report, a written complaint was given by Sub Inspector Daya Shankar Dwivedi at Police Station Hazratganj, on the the basis of which the present FIR was registered against the accused- applicant and co-accused. It is alleged that Bharat Singh, father of the accused-applicant gave an application on 03.03.2020 to S.S.P Varanasi requesting him to get the further investigation done under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C with regard to FIR registered against the accused- applicant by the victim.
(d) The said application was enquired by the then Circle Officer, Bhelupur, Amresh Kumar Singh, who prepared a report and submitted it which was adverse to the interest of victim of that case. The said report was made available to co-accused-Amitabh Thakur and other persons under Right to Information Act and was made public allegedly to defame the victim/prosecutrix. It is also alleged that the victim and her friend were so much harassed and tortured that they became desperate and perceived that they would not get any justice. They even feared for their lives and under these circumstances, they went to New Delhi and attempted a suicide outside the Supreme Court and later died during the course of treatment.
(e) The applicant has a sizeable criminal history of 25 cases. A coordinate bench of the Court vide order dated 14.03.2023 passed in bail application 1564 of 2023 while rejecting 2nd bail application of the applicant in the case had noticed that the applicant has been acquitted in the rape case lodged by the victim and an appeal is stated to have been filed against the order of acquittal. Similar observation had been made by another coordinate bench of the Court in its order dated 28.08.2023 passed in bail application while granting bail to the applicant pertaining to the Gangster Act after considering his medical condition. Apart from this it is also an admitted fact that Co-accused-Amitabh Thakur has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the court by order dated 14.03.2022.
Counsel for the applicant has urged that there is a consistent deterioration in the medical condition of the applicant. Even while he was on interim bail, no clear diagnosis or the PET Scan could be done despite the applicant having visited AIIMS at New Delhi.
It is further urged that the applicant, who is suffering for severe ailments cannot be a risk either for the witnesses nor the applicant can tamper with the evidence. All other co-accused have been enlarged on bail while the applicant is suffering and he is entitled for regular bail so that he can get himself treated appropriately and properly in specialized hospital including at AIIMS where he is required to go for a follow up and check ups at regular intervals including for his PET Scan
The Additional Advocate General has opposed the aforesaid bail application and has submitted that apparently this is the third bail application while earlier two bail applications of the applicant were dismissed on merits. There are no new circumstances which could be urged by the applicant, hence, the attempt to get into the merits would not be useful as the ground regarding the co-accused having been granted bail and that the applicant had been acquitted by the trial Court, all these grounds have been considered while rejecting the first and second bail application of the applicant. Hence, the applicant is precluded from raising the said issue once again in this third bail application.
The Court observed that,
Apparently from the earlier order dated 29.01.2024 which encapsulates the proceedings held earlier including it notices the medical condition of the applicant. This Court prima-facie finds that there are super specialty hospitals at Lucknow like Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Science, King George’s Medical University, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where adequate and efficacious medical treatment can be given to the applicant and if the applicant so wishes he can be treated on his own expenses at Medanta Hospital as well as Apollo Hospital which are also in Lucknow, in the private sector.
The record further indicates that the Medical Board which was constituted under the orders passed by aa Coordinate Court considering the medical condition of the applicant, he was found suffering from multiple chronic problems for which he was advised conservative treatment. There was no material pointed out to the Court that the applicant cannot be treated at Lucknow at any of the hospitals mentioned above.
The applicant can be treated and as suggested by the State that they are ready and willing to get the applicant treated at the super specialty hospitals and if required then at private hospitals and even if required the applicant can be taken to the said hospital at regular intervals for his check up and follow up and if required even get him admitted for treatment which can be done under judicial custody.
Hence, taking an overall view, the Court found that a direction can be issued to the State to ensure proper and prompt medical attention is provided to the applicant at the multi-specialty hospitals available in Lucknow where the applicant can be treated appropriately. The applicant shall be examined by a doctor regularly in the jail and whenever it is found that the applicant has to go for his further medical examination or follow up or for any test or check up or for his treatment which is to be done in a super specialty hospitals then the State shall ensure to take the applicant for such treatment and medical examination, even if at all, it is required in AIIMS at New Delhi. In case, the State does not take proper care and attention while the applicant is in judicial custody then the applicant shall be at liberty to move a fresh application.
Considering the facts and circumstances as noticed above including the nature of ailment, number of cases against the applicant, the accusations leveled against the applicant, the severity of punishment if the applicant is convicted, hence, the Court is not inclined to extent the interim bail.
The Court directed the applicant to surrender within ten days from today and the bail bonds and sureties submitted by the applicant while being enlarged on interim bail vide order dated 29.01.2024 shall stands discharged and the bail application shall stand rejected subject to the aforesaid directions and observations.