Page 1 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.374 OF 2014

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1834 OF 2013

Sita Ram ……Petitioner

Versus

Balbir @ Bali …. Respondent

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit J.

1.This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) highlights willful and deliberate

violation of the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court

in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013 and seeks initiation of appropriate

proceedings under the Act.

Page 2 2

2.The petitioner, original informant in FIR No.141 dated 06.05.2011

with Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana for offences

punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read

with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was the appellant in

Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013 assailing the Order dated 11.02.2013

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granting bail to the

respondent. While setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court in its

Judgment and dated 24.10.2013 observed as under:

“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 IPC 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 IPC against all the accused and

in addition to this a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC, 109

IPC and 25 of Arms Act against Balbir @ Bali, a prima facie

case under Section 307 IPC against Naresh and Rishi, a prima

facie case under Section 25 of Arms Act against Dinesh @ Kala

and Sunil and a prima facie case under Section 27 of Arms Act.

6. Keeping all these factors in perspective, especially the

wide-scale injuries suffered by several persons, there is a strong

Page 3 3

prima facie case of the involvement of the Respondent No.1 in

the alleged crimes. Moreover, the antecedents of Respondent

No.1 are such that a reasonably strong apprehension of his

tampering with witnesses or leveling of threats is imminent and

omnipresent. The severity of the attack should not be

overlooked. For these manifold reasons, we set aside the

impugned Order dated 11.2.2013, allow the Appeal and cancel

the bail granted to Respondent No.1 who shall surrender to

custody forthwith.”

3.Thus, while setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court took into

account the role played by the respondent in firing upon the deceased and

the fact that he was an influential person in the area with criminal

antecedents. In keeping with direction to surrender to custody forthwith, it

was expected of the respondent to do the needful. However, the record

indicates otherwise and shows attempts to evade execution of consequential

non-bailable warrants issued from time to time leading to delays in trial.

The Orders passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013, 05.02.2014,

15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and 14.05.2014 bear testimony in that behalf, which

Orders were as under:

20.11.2013

“Present: Shri A.S. Kadian, Public Prosecutor for the

State assisted by Shri R.K. Sehgal, counsel for the complainant.

Accused Sunil and Ajay in custody, whereas all the

remaining accused except accused Balwan alias Balli on bail,

with Shri O.P. Chugh, Shri Surinder Verma, Advocates.

Accused Balwan absent.

Page 4 4

Three PWs namely Sita Ram, Ram Chander and Ram

Mehar are present, but their statements could not be recorded as

warrant of arrest issued against accused Balwan not received

back either executed or unexecuted and an application seeking

exemption of accused Balwan alias Balli from personal

appearance for today along with affidavit of his son and

photocopy of the Special Criminal Review Petition, has been

moved. Heard. Perused. Since there is no stay granted by

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case and further more

bail of accused-applicant Balwan had already been cancelled by

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, 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

Page 5 5

“Present : Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Accused Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining accused on

bail except accused Balbir alias Bali.

Warrant of arrest of accused Balbir alias Bali received

back unexecuted. Now fresh non-bailable-warrant against

accused Balbir alias Bali be issued through SP Rohtak for

16.4.2014. Notice to his surety and identifier be issued through

SHO concerned for the date fixed.

16.04.2014

“Present: Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Shri O.P. Chugh, counsel for accused Rohtas and Balbir @ Bali.

Accused Ajay in custody while all the remaining accused on

bail except accused Balbir @ Bali…………………….

An application has been moved on behalf of accused

Balbir @ Bali in which it is stated that accused Balbir @ Bali

has filed Curative Petition No.12576/2014 in the Hon’ble Apex

Court and hence, intimation is being submitted before the

Court. Since warrant of arrest have already been issued against

accused Balbir @ Bali, hence, the filing of the application on

behalf of accused is of no consequence. The non-bailable

warrant which was issued against Balbir @ Bali received back

unexecuted and the report is perused. Fresh non-bailable

warrant be again issued against Balbir @ Bali and be sent

through Superintendent of Police, Rohtak with the direction that

the same be executed through some responsible police officer

for 14.5.2014.”

14.05.2014

“ Present Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the

State.

Shri O.P. Chugh, counsel for the accused Balbir @ Bali.

Accused Ajay in custody while all the remaining accused on

bail except accused Balbir @ Bali.

Page 6 6

Non-bailable warrant issued against accused Balbir @

Bali received back unexecuted. Even the bailable warrant

issued against surety has not been executed. Report perused. It

appears that State is not making serious efforts for execution of

the warrant of arrest. Hence, fresh non-bailable warrant be

issued against accused Balbir @ Bali and the same be sent to a

Superintendent of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak for execution

with the direction to get the same executed through some

responsible officer of the police for 07.07.2014. Fresh bailable

warrant against surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be also issued

for the next date of hearing.”

4.These Orders passed by the Trial Court show that although witnesses

for prosecution were present to 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

Page 7 7

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 14.01.2015 submitted to this Court it

appears that respondent No.1 is admitted to the hospital for the

past 15 months. No medical certificate to that effect is however

available on record. In the circumstance we deem it fit to direct

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak Range to verify

whether the statement made by Amit Kumar son of the

respondent regarding admission of respondent No.1 in the

hospital is factually correct and to file a report before this Court

regarding his medical condition if he is indeed admitted to the

hospital anywhere in the State of Haryana”.

5.Accordingly Mr. Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak

submitted an affidavit on 16.02.2015, stating that son of the respondent in

his statement recorded on 8.02.2015 had stated that his father was admitted

in Privat Hospital, Gurgaon and that said son also produced Medical

Certificate dated 7.02.2015 to that effect. After verifying the fact,

instructions were issued to keep close watch and take the respondent in

custody upon his discharge. The Medical Certificate dated 07.02.2015 was

annexed to the affidavit and the Certificate reads as under:-

“PRIVAT HOSPITAL DR. SACHDEV PVT. LTD.

DLF PHASE-II, M.G. ROAD,

GURGAON-122002, INDIA.

Date:07.02.2015

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

Certified that Mr. Balbir Singh is admitted in Privat Hospital

since 11.04.2014 with diagnosis of

Page 8 8

An o/c of Ischaemic Heart Disease

With Angioplasty done twice in past

With hypertension

With COPD and Acute Examination

With Anxiety with Acid Peptic Disorder

And GIRD.

He has improved significantly, symptomatically and no

intervention was done during the hospitalization. He is likely to be

discharged in next 5-7 days…….”

6. The matter was taken up on 24.04.2015 when the Counsel for the

State produced copies of Medical Certificates dated 11.04.2014 and

26.03.2015. The Certificate dated 26.03.2015 stated that the respondent was

fit to be produced in a Court of Law but it did not indicate whether he was

discharged, and if not discharged, the reason for his continued admission.

This Court, being prima facie of the view that the Hospital was providing

medical asylum to the respondent to avoid arrest, ordered as under:-

“……………….. We are in the circumstances inclined to

direct the personal presence of the 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

26

th

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

Page 9 9

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 told many times that he can be discharged but

kept on delaying the decision for being discharged. He was not

making payments for his medical bills. He had kept on

assuring the hospital that he will clear all the medical bills but

kept on paying small amounts and promising balance of

payment soon.

6.It is submitted that on 13.02.2015, the police officials at

PS Kalanaur, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana had informed the Hospital

that the hospital may inform the SHO, Kalanaur Police Station,

Rohtak, whenever the Hospital discharges this patient………

7.Subsequently, the Police official from Kalanaur Police

Station, Rohtak vide his communication dated 15.03.2015 inter

alia, requesting the Hospital to opine whether this patient can be

produced in the Court of Ld. ADJ, Rohtak.

8.In response to his communication dated 15.03.2015 of

the Rohtak Police, the Hospital had clearly informed them on

16.3.2015 that the patient Mr. Balbir Singh is fit to be produced

in the Court. The further details of his treatment in the Hospital

with a Certificate were also issued on 26.03.2015. …….. The

police officials from Rohtak by his communication dated 1.5.15

Page 10 10

had requested the Hospital to issue a discharge slip. While

respectfully reiterating that from 15.3.15 itself the police

officials of Rohtak Police had been clearly told by the Hospital

that this patient is fit to be taken to the Court where he is

required, the Hospital once again acceded to the request of the

Rohtak Police and also issued a Discharge Slip on the same day,

i.e., 01.05.2015. ………..”

The affidavit went on to state that the Hospital was not aware of any

direction to the respondent to surrender to custody which he had not

complied with and that the respondent had cleverly continued to stay in the

Hospital.

8.Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak filed his affidavit

dated 02.07.2015 in which developments subsequent to the filing of the

earlier affidavit were detailed in paragraphs 6 to 13:-

“6.It is further submitted that on 21.02.2015, the S.H.O.

Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana along with

other police officials of the Police Station went to the above

said hospital to arrest accused Balbir @ Bali but doctors of the

above said hospital refused to discharge the accused Balbir @

Bali. In this regard DDRs No.9 and No.38 dated 21.02.2015

were recorded 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.

Page 11 11

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 Station had gone to Privat Hospital Dr.

Sachdev Pvt. Ltd., Phase-II, M.G. Road, Gurgaon to arrest

accused Balbir @ Bali who was declared Proclaimed Offender

in case FIR No.141 dated 06.05.2011 under Sections

148/149/323/325/307/302/109/114 IPC & 25 of Arms Act,

Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana but the

doctors of the said hospital again refused to discharge accused

Balbir @ Bali under the pretext that his treatment was going on

and intimation shall be given within two days after completing

his treatment. The S.H.O., Police Station Kalanaur, District

Rohtak before going and after returning recorded the DDR

No.12 dated 25.03.2015 at 8.20 AM and DDR No.42 at 10.20

PM mentioning all these details therein at Police Station

Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana.

10.That notwithstanding the issuance of medical certificate

dated 26.3.2015 by Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd.

Gurgaon, Haryana, the concerned hospital authorities

intentionally did not discharge the accused Balbir @ Bali from

the hospital for reasons known to them. It is further mentioned

that the doctors of the said hospital orally advised the police not

to arrest the accused as it may put his life in jeopardy/or danger.

11.That owing to the prevarication on part of authorities of

Privat Hospital, a request was made to the Chief Medical

Officer (CMO), Gurgaon, Haryana by the S.H.O. Police Station

Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana through ASI Mahabir Singh

Page 12 12

No.222/RTK of the said Police Station for constituting a

Medical Board to give opinion whether the accused Balbir @

Bali who is getting treatment in the said hospital can be arrested

from the hospital in the said situation by getting his physical

condition and if not, then to provide the medical team of

Doctors to accompany the police for bringing him to Rohtak so

that he may be produced before the learned Court in the

supervision of Doctors.

12.That the authorities of Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt.

Ltd. Gurgaon failed to formally discharge the accused Balbir @

Bali from the hospital despite several visits of the local police.

Due to non-cooperation of Privat Hospital authorities, accused

Balbir @ Bali could not be taken into custody despite an Order

of arrest. It is further submitted that the Chief Medical Officer,

Gurgaon also refused to provide an Ambulance and team of

Doctors in whose supervision 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 examing 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

01.05.2015 for evaluation, investigation, treatment and

monitoring. The accused Balbir @ Bali remained admitted in

Page 13 13

PGIMS, Rohtak from 01.05.2015 to 12.05.2015. That on

12.05.2015, accused Balbir @ Bali was discharged from

PGIMS, Rohtak and is since in District Jail, Rohtak, Haryana.”

9.The matter was thereafter taken up on 08.07.2015 when this Court,

with a view to find out whether the Hospital had become party to attempts

of the respondent to prevent the law from taking its course, passed following

Order:-

“………From the versions presented to us about the

circumstances in which respondent-Balbir continued to evade

arrest by the police on account of his prolonged admission to

the hospital, we are prima facie of the view that an appropriate

enquiry is called for in order to bring the truth to light

especially with a view to finding out whether the hospital had

become a privy to the attempt of the respondent to somehow

prevent the law from taking its course. The fact that the

respondent remained admitted to the hospital concerned for a

long period without so much as paying the amount claimed by

the hospital shows that the admission of the respondent to the

hospital may not have been an innocent act. We do not for the

present wish to say anything further at this stage lest it causes

prejudice to any party. All that we need mention is that, in our

opinion, the appropriate course would be to direct a proper

inquiry into the circumstances in which the respondent-Balbir

continued to avoid arrest and escape from the long arms of law

with or without the help of the hospital concerned.

We accordingly direct the Director of Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) to suitably nominate a senior officer to

conduct an inquiry into the circumstances in which the

respondent was admitted to the Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt.

Ltd. and also to report whether there was any criminality

attached to the action of the management of the hospital or on

the part of the doctors concerned in granting a prolonged

admission to the respondent with the object of protecting the

respondent from being arrested and committed to jail. We hope

and trust the officer concerned completes the inquiry

Page 14 14

expeditiously and submits a report to this Court within a period

of two months from today…….. ”

10. An enquiry was accordingly conducted by Shri S.S. Kishore,

Superintendent of Police, 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 period for the

Conservative Treatment which he was given in said Hospital as

confirmed by Dr. Munish Prabhakar, the Consultant Physician

of the said Hospital.

(f)There was no change in the condition of accused Balbir

Singh from 12.06.2014 to 1.12.2014 necessitating him to be

kept as indoor patient as is evident from the table given at Para

Page 15 15

3 (ii) (c ) at Page No.5 of this Enquiry Report, still he was kept

in the said Hospital for no reason.

(g)No laboratory tests were conducted during the period

from 25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from 12.04.2014 to

01.5.2015 which indicate that neither illness of accused Balbir

Singh was serious nor treatment given to him was intensive.

(h)There was no cogent ground for which accused Balbir

Singh was allowed to move out of the said Hospital for 47

times during the admission in the said Hospital. Rather it

establishes that he was fit to move freely and was not required

to be kept as indoor patient.

(i)There was no justification for the continued admission of

accused Balbir Singh in the said Hospital from 11.04.2014 to

1.05.2015 i.e. for 386 days.

(j)Accused Balbir Singh remained admitted in the said

Hospital without any payment for the first 274 days during his

third admission as he was admitted in the said Hospital on

11.04.2014 and he made the first payment of Rs. 50,000/- only

on 10.01.2015.

(k)The administration of said Hospital kept the accused

admitted for financial gains as they were getting approximately

Rs. 9,500/- per day.

(l)Accused Balbir Singh made full payment of his first and

second admission bills in said Hospital, but paid only a part of

his dues for his third admission bills.

(m)Filing of complaint case against accused Balbir Singh in

the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1

st

Class, Gurgaon u/s 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act on 20.07.2015 for dishonour of

cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- and filing of a suit against accused

Balbir Singh on 13.08.2015 in the Court of Civil Judge,

Gurgaon for recovery of remaining bill amounting to Rs.

29,58,459/- (Twenty Nine Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Four

Hundred and Fifty Nine) appear to be afterthoughts of the

Page 16 16

administration of the said Hospital as these have been filed after

the Order dated 8.07.2015 of this Hon’ble Court.

(n)The said Hospital on more than one occasion informed

Rohtak Police 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,

21.11.2013, 02.01.2014, 12.2.2014, 19.03.2014, 18.04.2014 and

15.05.2014 which were returned unexecuted by PS Kalanaur.

None of the execution report mentioned about any enquiry from

family members of the accused or his whereabouts. It was also

revealed that some of the entries made in the General Diaries of

PS Kalanaur in connection with the efforts for arresting the

accused Balbir Singh do not correspond with the respective log

books of vehicles.”

Page 17 17

12.After considering the Enquiry Report, this Court was prima facie of

the opinion, that notice was required to be issued to Dr. K.S. Sachdev, why

he should not be punished for committing contempt of court. The Order

dated 19.11.2015 passed by this Court dealt with the matter as under:-

“………………We have heard learned counsel for the

parties and are of the view that a notice of show cause ought to

issue even to Dr. K.S. Sachdev who happens to be the

Managing Director of Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd.,

Gurgaon. A notice shall accordingly issue asking Dr. K.S.

Sachdev to show cause why he should not be punished for

committing contempt of this Court in as much as from the

material placed on record, it appears that Balbir Singh accused

in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2011 was harboured by the Hospital

run by the Company of which he is the Managing Director for a

considerable period and prima facie without any justification

and only with a view to preventing his arrest and committal to

jail pursuant to the Orders passed by this Court in Criminal

Appeal No. 1834 of 2013 the Orders passed by this Court in

Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2013 dated 24.10.2013. Notice

shall be directed to the Station House Officer to the

Jurisdictional Police Station for service upon Dr. K.S. Sachdev.

………………. Mr. Shashank Anand, S.P. shall also file

his reply affidavit to the contempt petition as also the

preliminary report within three weeks from today with an

advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner who will

have one week thereafter to respond to the same.”

13. Accordingly, Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak filed

his affidavit dated 07.12.2015 submitting that he took charge as

Superintendent of Police, Rohtak on 24.11.2014. He stated that the fact that

Page 18 18

the respondent had not surrendered despite cancellation of his bail by this

Court was brought to his knowledge for the first time 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 stated that after it received a communication from

Rohtak Police dated 15.03.2015 to get the respondent examined by a

Page 19 19

Medical Board, that the hospital on 16.03.2015 furnished a fitness report to

Rohtak Police declaring the respondent to be fit to be produced in court of

law. The affidavit further stated that for reasons best known to them the

police did not take the respondent from the hospital despite such fitness

report and the respondent was finally discharged after letter dated

01.05.2015 seeking his discharge was received from the police. The

affidavit stated that no police official came to the hospital seeking custody of

the respondent and that the hospital had not refused to comply with the

request of the police at any stage. It further stated:

“The prolonged admission happened as the accused

trapped the Hospital by not paying. There was no

criminality on part of hospital as it was totally unaware

of his criminal status before 13.02.2015. The hospital

did not keep him as he was paying Rs.9,500/- to the

hospital, it was non- payment of this amount that gave

him prolonged stay and he very cleverly used this

position that for the fear of losing money, the hospital

will not discharge him and he trapped the hospital very

cleverly being a wily politician.”

15. We heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.

Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Shashank

Anand, Superintendent of Police, Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned Senior

Advocate for Dr. K.S. Sachdev and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior

Advocate for Dr. Munish Prabhakar.

Page 20 20

16.From the record and the Enquiry Report as stated above, it is clear that

soon after the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court, the respondent

remained admitted in the Hospital for a total of 527 days. Nothing has been

placed on record, nor any medical condition or reasons have been adverted

to why such admission was required in the first place. As found in the

Enquiry, no laboratory test was conducted during the period of admission

from 25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from 12.04.2014 to 01.05.2015. This

shows that the illness as projected was not serious at all and no intensive

treatment as indoor patient was required or called for. This prolonged

admission without any justifiable medical reason was essentially to defeat

the direction issued by this Court in its Order dated 24.10.2013 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

Page 21 21

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 remain admitted till action was taken by this Court in

contempt jurisdiction, exhibits scant respect and regard for the orders and

processes issued by the Court. Despite issuance of notice, the respondent has

neither filed any response nor tendered any apology. Having gone through

the record and considered the Enquiry Report, we have no doubt that the

respondent is guilty of having committed contempt of the direction issued by

this Court in its Order dated 24.10.2013 and also in obstructing the

administration of justice.

19.We now turn to the role of the hospital and medical professionals. The

explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev was that

they were not aware of any direction by this Court to the respondent to

surrender to custody or that the respondent was required in connection with

Page 22 22

any crime. At the outset, it must be stated that the respondent stood admitted

in the hospital for 527 days. Not a single laboratory test was conducted

during the period from 15.02.2014 to 01.05.2015. The papers produced on

record do not in any way suggest any medical emergency which could

justify continued admission of the respondent as an indoor patient. Further,

during the third admission of the respondent from 12.04.2014 the first

payment to the hospital was made only on 10.01.2015 i.e. nearly after 247

days. It is inconceivable that in normal circumstances a man, who has no

ailment or a medical condition requiring emergency treatment would be kept

as indoor patient without any laboratory test and without recovering a single

paisa for more than 247 days. Moreover, the record indicates that on as

many as 47 occasions during his admission the respondent was allowed to

move out of the hospital without even an endorsement by any medical

professional justifying such movement. The Enquiry Report further shows

that there used to be regular stream of visitors during the stay of respondent

in the hospital. These features clearly show that the respondent was in

perfect condition of health and never really required admission in the

hospital as an indoor patient. The role of the hospital was certainly not as

innocent as is sought to be projected and the features detailed above clearly

Page 23 23

show that the hospital was party to the attempts on part of the respondent to

defeat the Order passed by this Court.

20.When the compliance report forwarded by the District Judge, 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 dated

26.03.2015, the hospital refused to discharge the respondent and orally

Page 24 24

advised the police not to arrest the respondent lest it may put his life in

jeopardy or danger. The Enquiry Report rightly observed “……the said

hospital on more than one occasion informed Rohtak Police in writing that

accused Balbir Singh was fit to be taken to court but did not discharge him.”

It was only after this Court passed the Order dated 24.04.2015 directing

personal presence of Dr. Munish Prabhakar with a direction to file an

affidavit and explain the situation, that the hospital discharged the

respondent on 01.05.2015 which then resulted in arrest and production of the

respondent.

21.The explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. Sachdev

that the respondent trapped the hospital and by non-payment of the bills kept

prolonging his stay in the hospital does not inspire confidence at all. If the

hospital was really a victim of the machinations of the respondent, at the

first opportunity i.e. when requisition was made by the police on 13.02.2015,

the hospital would have responded immediately. The requisition dated

13.02.2015 had informed the hospital that respondent was a proclaimed

offender and that his custody was required. This requisition was close on the

heels of the medical certificate dated 07.02.2015 and if that certificate was a

correct one, the time was ripe for discharge of the respondent. However, as

stated by Shashank Anand in his affidavit dated 02.07.2015, the hospital

Page 25 25

refused to discharge the respondent. The theory that the hospital was

trapped by the designs of the respondent is a mere eye-wash and we reject

the same. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the hospital extended

protection and asylum to the respondent to defeat the Order passed by this

Court as well as those passed by the Trial Court and thereby obstructed

administration of justice.

22.Dr. Munish Prabhakar has been Medical Director of the hospital and

as submitted by learned Senior Counsel on his behalf, he receives salary and

some percentage of consultation charges recovered from the patients. Dr.

K.S. Sachdev, on the other hand, has been the Managing Director of the

Company which owns and runs said hospital. We have found that the

continued admission for such a long period as indoor patient was not

justifiable for any reason or medical condition of the respondent. Both these

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.

Page 26 26

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 tends to interfere

with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or

obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of

justice in any other manner;”

Willful disobedience to a direction issued by this Court on

24.10.2013 on part of the respondent is quite evident. He was party to the

proceedings and bound by the order and as such his liability on that court

stands established. Further, by his defiance of the direction so issued, he also

obstructed administration of justice. He is thus liable for committing civil

contempt as well as criminal contempt. But the Medical Professionals

namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev were not parties to the

matter where the direction in question was passed.

Page 27 27

24.As regards the liability of the aforesaid Medical Professionals,

questions that arise are: 1) whether a person, who is not bound by a direction

issued by the Court could be held guilty for committing contempt of court

for his conduct in either directly aiding and abetting violation on part of the

person who is bound by such direction; and 2) what is the extent of liability

of such person.

A.]In Seaward v. Paterson

1

the landlord of the concerned

premises had obtained an injunction against Paterson i.e. his tenant

restraining him from doing or allowing to be done anything on the premises

which would be a nuisance to the landlord and from using the premises

otherwise than for the purposes of a private club. Alleging that the tenant

had committed contempt of the court by allowing the premises to be used for

boxing matches, the landlord applied for committal of two other persons,

namely, Sheppard and Murray on the ground that they had aided and assisted

the tenant in his disobedience to the injunction. The following passages

from the Judgment of Lindley LJ are quite instructive:

“Now, Let us consider what jurisdiction the court has to make

an order against Murray. There is no injunction against him--

He is no more bound by the injunction granted against Paterson

than any other member of the public. He is bound, like other

members of the public, not to interfere with, and not to obstruct,

the course of justice; and the case, if any, made against him

1

(1895-99) All ER 1127

Page 28 28

must be this--not that he has technically infringed the

injunction, which was not granted against him in any sense of

the 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

2

the plaintiff had obtained injunction against

certain defendants and the assets of one such defendant against whom the

injunction was granted, were held by a bank. The bank was served with a

copy of the injunction but the concerned defendant had not yet been served.

While considering the question whether any disposal of assets belonging to

the defendant by the bank would make it liable for committing contempt of

Court, it was stated as under:

“I think that the following propositions may be stated as to the

consequences which ensue when there are acts or omissions

which are contrary to the terms of injunction. (1) The person

2

(1982) 1 All ER 556

Page 29 29

against whom the Order is made will be liable for contempt of

Court if he acts in breach of the Order after having notice of it.

(2) A third party will also be liable if he knowingly assists in the

breach, that is to say if knowing the terms of the injunction he

willfully assists the person to whom it was directed to disobey

it. This will be so whether or not the person enjoined has had

notice of the injunction… I will give my reasons for the second

proposition and take first the question of prior notice to the

defendant. It was argued that the liability of the third person

arose because he was treated as aiding and abetting the

defendant (i.e. was an accessory) and as the defendant could

himself not be in breach unless he had notice it followed that

there was no offence to which the third party could be an

accessory. In my opinion this argument misunderstands the true

nature of the liability of the third party. He is liable for

contempt of court committed by himself. It is true that his

conduct may very often be seen as possessing a dual character

of contempt of court by himself and aiding and abetting the

contempt by another, but the conduct will always amount to

contempt by himself. It will be conduct which knowingly

interferes with the administration of justice by causing the

Order of the court to be thwarted.”

C]The extent of liability of third party in such actions was

considered by the House of Lords in Attorney General v. Times

Newspapers Ltd. and another

3

. In that case the Attorney General had

brought action against two newspapers seeking permanent injunction

restraining them from publishing material from a book written by a person

who was formerly a member of the security service and by terms of his

employment was bound by confidentiality which would stand breached if his

memoirs were published. While the interlocutory injunctions restraining

3

(1991) 2 All ER 398

Page 30 30

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 confidential. It

follows that the conduct of the publishers and editor of the

Sunday Times constituted the actus reus of impeding or

interfering with the administation of justice by the court in the

confidentiality actions.”

D]In a separate concurring opinion Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

stated as under:

“I turn to consider whether there is any reason why established

principle should not be applied to the situation in this case. I do

not accept the propostion that to apply established principles in

the foregoing circumstances would effectively be to convert

every injuction from an order in personam to an order contra

mundum. That proposition ignores the distinction between the

breach of an order by the person named therein and interference

Page 31 31

with the course of justice resulting from a frustration of the

order by the third party.”

25. In our view, the Medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar

and Dr. K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to the respondent without

there being any reason or medical condition justifying prolonged admission

of the respondent as an indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed

by this Court and the Trial Court, as stated above and thereby aided and

assisted the respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct

these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of justice.

26. We thus hold that the respondent guilty of having violated the Order

dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court and for having obstructed

administration of justice. We also hold Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S.

Sachdev guilty for having helped the respondent in his attempts and thereby

obstructing administration of justice. Having held so, we could straightaway

have imposed appropriate punishment under the Act. However, we deem it

appropriate to grant one more opportunity to these contemnors. The

respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered an apology. At the same

time for Dr. K.S. Sachdev, Managing Director of the company that owns the

hospital is said to be 76 years of age. Considering the fact that these are

medical professionals with sufficient standing, in our view ends of justice

Page 32 32

would be met if one more opportunity is granted to them to present their

view on the issue of punishment. In the circumstances, we direct presence of

these three contemnors on January 2, 2017. The respondent is in custody 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.

Page 33 33

28. As regards the role of Mr. Shanshank Anand, Superintendent of Police,

Rohtak, we find that he took charge as Superintendent of Police, Rohtak on

24.11.2014 i.e. well after the Order dated 24.10.2013 of this Court and after

the Orders directing issuance of non-bailable warrants against the respondent

were passed by the Trial Court. However, even according to his own

affidavit, if he became aware that respondent had not surrendered despite

cancellation of his bail and that he was admitted in Privat Hospital, Gurgaon

only in February 2015, the steps that he took after 16.2.2015 cannot strictly

be called actions taken with reasonable promptitude. Even according to

Paras 6, 7 and 8 of affidavit dated 2.07.2015 nothing was done during the

period 27.02.2015 to 23.03.2015. The action apparently was initiated only

after the Order dated 24.4.2015 was passed by this Court. Though we

express dissatisfaction, we do not deem it appropriate to carry the matter

further as against him. The notice issued to him is discharged and the

petition as against him stands closed.

Page 34 34

29.Ordered accordingly.

…………………CJI.

(T.S. Thakur)

…………………….J.

(R. Banumathi)

…………………….J.

(Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi,

December 15, 2016