Chattisgarh High Court
Suraj Chokhani vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 31 January, 2025
1 / 12
2025:CGHC:5924
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2529 of 2024
Order reserved on 17/10/2024
Order passed on 31/01/2025
Suraj Chokhani S/o Ramesh Kumar Chokhani Aged About 44 Years R/o
House No. 430, Ae Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, Kolkata, West Bengal.
700064
... Petitioner
versus
Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India Represented By Its
Assistant Director, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Raipur Zonal Office, A-1 Block, 2nd
Floor, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Agrawal, Advocate (through
virtual mode) along with Mr. Mohit Kumar,
Advocate
For Respondent/ED : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
C.A.V. Order
1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of
Digitally
signed by
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure A/1), passed by learned Special Judge
2 / 12
(Prevention of Money Laundering Act)/4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Raipur, in ED Case No. 1 of 2024, whereby the learned trial Court
has rejected the application of the petitioner seeking necessary
direction to permit the petitioner to be admitted in a private hospital
for a period of 4 days for the purpose of undergoing medical tests.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the ECIR bearing No.
RPZO/10/2022, dated 06.10.2022 and amended ECIR dated
02.09.2023 has been registered against the present petitioner and
other accused persons for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as
PMLA, 2002″). In the ECIR, it is alleged that about 6 FIRs have been
registered against the various accused persons for the offences of
Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy, which are the scheduled offences
under the PMLA, 2002. The said FIRs have been registered, whose
details are given herein below:
(i) FIR No. 112 of 2022, dated 30.03.2022, registered at
Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg for the offence
under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC,
(ii) FIR No. 206 of 2023, dated 02.06.2023 registered at
Police Station Cyber Crime, Vishakhapatnam
Commissionerate, Andhra Pradesh,
(iii) FIR No. 37 of 2023, dated 17.03.2023 registered at
Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg for the offence
under Section 420 of IPC,
(iv) FIR No. 86 of 2023, dated 27.02.2023 registered at
Police Station Chhavani, District Durg for the offence under
Section 420 of IPC.
3 / 12
(v) FIR No. 336 of 2023, dated 10.08.2023 registered at
Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur for the offence
under Sections 420, 34 of IPC.
(vi) FIR No. 685 of 2023, dated 11.08.2023 registered at
Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur for the offence
under Section 420 of IPC.
*******The Enforcement Directorate (in short ‘ED’) had filed the first
prosecution complaint on 20.10.2023 in the present ECIR under
Section 44 read with Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 for the offence
under Section 3/4 of the PMLA, 2002 against 14 accused persons. In
the first ECIR, the present petitioner has not been made an accused.
On 01.01.2024, the ED filed a supplementary prosecution complaint
in the present ECIR against 5 accused persons, in which also the
present petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused. On the ECIR
submitted by the ED, the Learned Special Court took cognizance of
the offence and issued notices to the other accused persons, who
were not in custody, vide order dated 19.01.2024.
*******On 28.02.2024, at about 6:50 AM, the ED conducted search
and seizure proceedings in the residential premises of the petitioner
at AE Block, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata in the presence of the
petitioner. The search was continued till 4:50 AM on 29.02.2024 i.e.
almost about 24 hours and various Panchnamas were prepared
during the search. The said Panchnamas were also signed by the
present petitioner. On 29.02.2024, the petitioner was taken to the ED
office at Raipur along with the sister-in-law of the petitioner and at
Raipur, he was put up in the Ivy Hotel by the ED.
4 / 12
*******On 03.03.2024, the petitioner was formally arrested and was
produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who
was the Remand Duty Magistrate and the ED sought custody of the
petitioner for further investigation. After the investigation, the
prosecution complaint has been filed against the petitioner and ED
case No. 1 of 2024 is registered by the learned Special Judge
(PMLA), Raipur.
*******During the proceeding of ED case, the petitioner filed an
application on 14.08.2024 before the learned Special Court, Raipur
seeking direction to permit the petitioner to be admitted into private
hospital for a period of 4 days for the purpose of undergoing medical
tests. In the said application the petitioner has averred that on
24.07.2024, when the wife of the petitioner met him in the Central
Jail, Raipur, he informed her about symptoms of his ailment, such as
fatigue, breathlessness, exertion and blood in stool. Thereafter, on
31.07.2024, his wife has consulted Dr. S. Chhatterjee at Kolkata and
obtained medical advice wherein the doctor has advised the
petitioner to undergo colonoscopy. Along with the application, the
medical prescription obtained from Dr. S. Chhatterjee, Kolkata was
annexed.
*******After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge has
rejected the application filed by the petitioner for permission to be
admitted in private hospital for 4 days for his medical tests vide its
order dated 29.08.2024 observing that the doctor who has issued the
5 / 12
medical prescription to the petitioner on 31.07.2024 is issued without
physically examined the petitioner and based on it sending the
petitioner for his medical text is not necessary, however he has to
medically examined by the Jail Hospital first, and based on the
opinion given by the Jail doctors, the petitioner should be taken to
other higher centre under the jail manual and as per the ailment and
physical condition of the petitioner. The said order dated 29.08.2024
passed by learned Special Judge is under challenge in the present
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is
in custody and the Jail Authorities are required to provide proper
medical treatment to the petitioner for his ailment and the learned
Special Court had the power to direct the petitioner to be admitted in
the hospital for his test/treatment, but the learned Special Judge left it
on the discretion of the Jail Authorities. The petitioner is asking for his
medical test from the higher medical centre as he is suffering from
blood in stool and fatigue and breathlessness. He would further
submit that Dr. S. Chhatterjee, Kolkata has advised the petitioner to
colonoscopy, which cannot be undergone in the Jail Hospital as the
necessary equipment for the same are not available there. Looking to
his deteriorating health condition, he is required for immediate proper
medical treatment in a private hospital. He would also submit that
right to medical treatment of an accused of under-trial prisoner is a
6 / 12
right covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no
person can be deprived of the same.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would
rely upon the judgment passed by Bombay High Court in Asgar
Yusuf Mukadam and others v. State of Maharashtra and another,
2004 SCC Online Bom 1221, Mohammad Nawab Mohammad
Islam Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement, order dated
13.05.2022, passed in Bail Application No. 288 of 2022, Bombay
High Court, Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement,
Order dated 26.050.2023, in SLP (Crl.) No. 6561/2023, Hon’ble
Supreme Court, Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union
Territory of Delhi and others, (1981) 1 SCC 608, Surjit Singh v.
State of Punjab and others, AIR 1996 SC 1388, Jaya Chheda v.
State of Maharashtra, order dated 24.10.2017, in Criminal Appeal
No. 1808 of 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Sumathi v.
Government of Tamil Nadu, order dated 17.06.2016 in WP (MD)
No. 9601 of 2016 (Madras High Court) and Pratim @ Peter Balram
Makerjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation, order dated
01.07.2019 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1381 of 2019 (Bombay
High Court). He would further submit that looking to the health
condition of the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid judgments
passed by various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
petitioner may be permitted to admit in a private hospital for his
medical test or treatment as prayed in the application.
7 / 12
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ED vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
and would submit that from the medical prescription issued by Dr. S.
Chatterjee dated 31.07.2024, it is evidently clear that the said
medical report was prepared by the doctor without there being any
physical medical diagnosis and the prescription has been prepared
on the basis of oral request made by the wife of the petitioner. The
petitioner is detained in jail for a serious offence of money laundering
and therefore, there is every possibility that the wife of the petitioner
may describe the wrong symptom to the doctor to obtain a report
from him and to get the relaxation. There are so many other accused
persons, who are still absconding and there is possibility that the
petitioner by taking advantage of facilities available in the private
hospital, may temper the evidences and may give crucial information
to the other accused persons about the case. Insisting by the
petitioner for admitting him in a private hospital itself creates a doubt
upon him.
*******He would further submit that the respondent department does
not have any objection in medical examination of the petitioner by the
doctors available in the Jail Hospital and if they advised for his further
medical treatment or test and if they furnished the medical report with
the Jail Authorities about some diseases for which his treatment is
not available in the Jail Hospital, the respondent department has no
objection for his treatment/test at any government hospital at Raipur.
8 / 12
There is Medical College Hospital, DKS Super Speciality Hospital as
well as AIIMS Hospital is there at Raipur where the petitioner can be
taken for his treatment/test, if he requires for the same and
diagnosed by the doctor of Jail Hospital. He would further submit that
the petitioner was medically examined by the jail doctors as well as
by the District Medical Board and no any such ailment has been
found. He would also submit that on the basis of prescription which
has been issued based on information given by the wife of the
petitioner, he cannot be admitted in the private hospital. It is the Jail
Authorities who has to take care of his health condition and if he is
having any complication, he may get examined by Jail Hospital, and
if he requires further treatment, which is not available there, he may
refer for higher centre, therefore, there is no ground to allow the
present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
annexed with the petition.
7. This Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 called the medical
examination report of the petitioner duly examined by the District
Medical Board. In compliance of that, the Jail Authorities have
submitted the medical examination report of the petitioner dated
24.09.2024 and the medical certificate of the District Medical Board,
Raipur has given the following certificate:
9 / 12
MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
*******We the members of District Medical Board Raipur
have examined Mr. Suraj Chokhani, age 50 Yrs./M S/O
Ramesh Chokhani Come With Letter From Jail
Superintendent Central Jail Raipur (C.G.), S.N./10362/Jail
aspatal/2024 datted 24.09.2024 With Complain of
hypertension and bleeding per rectum since one month. On
complete examination of rectum & anus found to be normal
and Symptomatic treatment given. Patient is not a known
case of systemic hypertension and at present his blood
pressure is normal.
8. Along with the medical certificate, the OPD Slip dated 24.09.2024 is
also annexed, in which the following has been mentioned:
Prisoner Pt. came from Central Jail Raipur (C.G.)
for medical examination, B/B Umakant (620) C/O
ep HTM.
C/O Bleeding per rectum: 1 month.
On the same day i.e. on 24.09.2024 he was
medically examined by the Dr. D.K. Sinha (MS)
and Dr. Samriddhi (MD) and following
prescription has been written by them:
C/O Bleeding PR x 1 month
Few drops seen at end of motion
as with mild itching
No constipation
O/E perianal region (N)
Anal tone and PR tone and
protoscopy done
No haemorroids
No man
No blood fom
Adv. : Syp Lectose 15 ml HS
T Dajion 1000 IV BD
RVAJNR 7 days 1 Su
10 / 12*******From the medical report of the petitioner submitted by District
Medical Board, Raipur dated 24.09.2024, it was found that on
complete examination of rectum and anus of the petitioner found to
be normal and symptomatic treatment given. Further, the medical
board has also observed that the patient is not a known case of
systemic hypertension and at present his blood pressure is normal.
The health condition of the petitioner was not found to be abnormal
and he is not required to be taken to any higher centre.
*******From the prescription dated 31.07.2024, issued by Dr. S.
Chhatterjee, Kolkata, it is quite vivid that the tests prescribed on the
basis of symptoms described by wife of the petitioner, who informed
him that the petitioner is complaining of bleeding P/R and therefore
he advised for colonoscopy. It is very difficult for the Jail Authorities to
take the petitioner to private hospital for his colonoscopy test only on
the basis of such medical prescription, which has been issued by the
doctor only on the information given by the wife of the petitioner and
without physically examined the patient. It appears that it is a general
opinion of the doctor based on the common query.
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Gayatri
Prasad Prajapati, AIR 2020 SC 5014 has held in Para 16 of its
judgment that :
“16……….. humane treatment by the prison
authorities. There can be no two views with regard to
above. Humane treatment to all including an accused
is requirement of law. Furthermore, a prisoner, who is
11 / 12suffering from an ailment, has to be given due
treatment and care while in prison.”
10. In the present case, from the medical report of the petitioner dated
24.09.2024, it is found that there is no serious medical ailment
suffered by the petitioner, which needs for him to be shifted or taken
to any higher medical centre for his test/treatment.
11. Though the petitioner has his fundamental right to get proper medical
treatment and when the person is sent to jail, the Court is not only
empowered, but it should be their endeavour to ensure through the
executive agency the availability of basic needs to the person who
are detained in custody. It is not denied by the respondent/ED that if
the petitioner is required for any test/treatment, they will not take him
to the higher centre, rather the respondent/ED and the Jail
Authorities are bound to take him to the higher centre as per his
requirement. A procedure has been prescribed in the jail manual for
treatment providing to the prisoner and taking him to the higher
centre for treatment. The higher medical centres, like; Medical
College Hospital, Raipur, DKS Super Speciality Hospital and AIIMS
Hospital, Raipur are there, in which all the medical facilities are
available and more efficient than the private hospital.
12. The facts and circumstances of the cases in the judgments cited by
learned counsel for the petitioner are different than the facts and
circumstances of the present case as in the present case the
petitioner is not found to be suffered from the ailment as disclosed or
12 / 12suspected in the prescription of Dr. S. Chatterjee, dated 31.07.2024,
therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner by the same.
13. For the foregoing reasons and also in view of the medical report of
the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 submitted by the District Medical
Board, Raipur, I do not find any ground to allow the petition and to
direct the petitioner to be admitted in the private hospital for 4 days
for the purpose of undergoing medical tests.
14. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
[ad_1]
Source link