CHANDRA SWAMI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected by this Court vide order 8th May,1996. In this petition, the petitioner has averred that this petition is by way of review of the order of 8th May,1996. During the course of arguments, Mr.Ashok Arora, however, contended that this may be treated as second bail application. Admittedly, there is no bar for the petitioner to file a fresh bail application, but for doing so there has to be fresh facts and intervening circumstances to show that these facts were not available when his first bail application was decided or the intervening circumstances have enabled him to seek bail. But unfortunately no intervening circumstance nor fresh facts have been urged nor brought on record. Mr.Ashok Arora through out had been arguing that this Court while delivering the order on 8th May,1996 did not appreciate properly the contentions of the petitioner and had only presumed that C.B.I, was apprehending interference of evidence by the petitioner in India. This apprehension, according to Mr.Ashok Arora, cannot be based on any facts on record. In the Special Leave Petition Filed in Supreme Court nowhere the plea was taken that this <PG>39</PG> petitioner would interfere with the evidence in India. Therefore, this Court was not right in relying on the pleadings of the C.B.I, in its Special Leave Petition because in the said Special Leave Petition no such apprehensions have been expressed by C.B.I. And that while disposing of his bail application legal position had not been appreciated properly. I am afraid these contentions of Mr.Arora cannot be entertained. It amounts to review of the order dated 8th May,1996 which is not permissible in law. Second bail application, no doubt is permissible, but not a review petition seeking review of the order of this Court on the ground that facts and law has not been properly appreciated while deciding his bail application. I find no fresh facts to interfere with the order of 8th May,1996. The legal submissions now made are the same which were argued earlier by Mr.G.Ramaswamy, Senior Advocate. Though this time Mr.Ashok Arora has tried to elaborate more but nothing turns on the same, legal position remains the same.

(2.) So far as the request of interim bail on medical ground is conerned, I have perused the report of the Board of Doctors constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for evaluation of the medical problem of the petitioner. The said report shows that the petitioner is suffering from pain in cervical and dorsal region which he had been suffering for the last six years. He has also some streaking of stool with blood, petitioner is also suffering from gout pain for which he is under treatment. His cardiovascular and respiratory system are normal. His abdomen was also found to be normal. His blood sugar are reasonably under control. After analyising various reports, the Medical Board opined that the petitioner was suffering from extensive osteoarthritis of spine involving the cervical dorsal and lumber spine with giant osteophylosis. There is no prostrusion of the disc or osteophytes causing compression of spinal cord or nerve roots in lumbosacral region on computerised tomography scan. The petitioner has been advised to continue antihypertensive treatment. Antidiabetic drug treatment may be discontinued and diabetes may be controlled by diet alone and for gout he should continue allopurinol. The Board further observed that the petitioner does not require complete bed rest, he however needs analgesics and regular physiotheraphy for his lumber and cervical spondylosis. So far as the suffering from luber and cergical spondylosis are concerned, Medical Officer at Central Jail, Tihar will ensure that regular physiotheraphy is given to the petitioner. For this disease. I do not consider it a fit case to grant interim bail.

(3.) For the reasons stated above, I find no merits in the petition. Dismised.