1995 (4) TMI 146 - HC - FEMA

Accused's Bail Revoked for Fraudulent Means and False Health Claims

TK. DUTTA Versus PAWAN KUMAR DIDWANIA

TK. DUTTA Versus PAWAN KUMAR DIDWANIA - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 424 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of bail granted on 10th May 1993.2. Allegations of fraud and false statements by the accused.3. Medical condition of the accused as a ground for bail.4. Compliance with court orders by Jail Authorities.5. Validity of the accused's health claims.6. Potential interference with the investigation by the accused.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of Bail Granted on 10th May 1993:The petitioner, an Enforcement Officer, filed an application to modify/set aside/cancel the bail granted to the accused on 10th May 1993. The accused was initially arrested on 5th May 1993 under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and was remanded to jail custody by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. A bail petition was rejected on 7th May 1993, but the accused was kept under medical supervision due to allegations of torture. A subsequent bail application was granted on 10th May 1993 based on the accused's claimed serious health condition.2. Allegations of Fraud and False Statements by the Accused:The petitioner contended that the accused procured the bail order by making false statements about his health condition, alleging that he was suffering from Myo Cardiac Infraction. The court was induced to release him on bail based on these false/frivolous grounds. The petitioner argued that the accused's claims were fraudulent and aimed at misleading the court.3. Medical Condition of the Accused as a Ground for Bail:The accused claimed to suffer from acute chest pain and Myo Cardiac Infraction, necessitating his removal to S.S.K.M. Hospital. The court granted bail considering the serious health condition and the accused's request to be treated by his own doctors. However, the petitioner argued that there was no medical report from the Jail Medical Officer or Jail Superintendent to support the accused's claims. A letter from Dr. Monotosh Panja, dated 29th May 1993, indicated that the accused did not suffer from Myo Cardial Infraction and was discharged on 10th May 1993 on his own risk bond.4. Compliance with Court Orders by Jail Authorities:The court's order on 7th May 1993 directed that the accused be kept in jail custody under medical supervision, with specialized treatment provided if necessary. However, the accused was removed to S.S.K.M. Hospital without prior court permission or intimation, violating the court's specific order. The Jail Authority's actions were questioned, but no explanation was sought.5. Validity of the Accused's Health Claims:The accused's health claims were scrutinized, revealing inconsistencies. There was no mention of Myo Cardiac Infraction in the bail applications filed on 5th and 7th May 1993. The ground of serious illness due to Myo Cardiac Infraction appeared for the first time in the application filed on 10th May 1993. The letter from Dr. Panja confirmed that the accused did not suffer from Myo Cardial Infraction, contradicting the accused's claims.6. Potential Interference with the Investigation by the Accused:The petitioner expressed reasonable apprehension that the accused would interfere with the investigation if granted bail. Despite no allegations of bail abuse or liberty misuse, the petitioner sought bail cancellation to uphold the court's dignity and order sanctity.Conclusion:The court concluded that the accused had no serious ailment as claimed and had obtained bail on false/frivolous grounds by practicing fraud upon the court. The bail granted on 10th May 1993 was canceled, and the accused was directed to surrender before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate within seven days. Failure to surrender would result in appropriate processes for securing his arrest and detention in custody.Order:The petitioner's application was allowed, and the bail granted to the accused was canceled. The accused was directed to surrender within seven days, failing which the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate would issue processes for his arrest and production. A copy of the order was sent to the Magistrate for compliance.