SURESH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Penal Lawyer for the State. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 5.11.97 as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Criminal Mrsc. Case No. 203 of 1997 thereby directing immediate arrest of accused petitioner Suresh Prasad Gupta and Ram Nivash Singh by revoking the earlier bail order passed in their favour, exercising his power under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. This order has been challenged on several grounds.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Excise business is controlled by the State Government and the petitioners were arrested on 3.10.97 along with others, they were produced before the C.J.M. on 4.10.97. The SDJM granted bail vide order dated 7.110.97 and 27.10.97. Inviting attention to the forwarding letter, Annexure-C it was submitted the liquor did not come directly to the victims from the petitioners shop. The Sessions Judge on 28.10.97 issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the bail granted to them should not be cancelled. Thus it is not as if the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the accused petitioners. In fact the accused petitioners had submitted their reply to the show cause notice reiterating their stand that they are innocence. There is no substance that the accused petitioners were heard before cancellation of their bail order. As has been noted by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 28.10.97, Annexrare-D, the bail was granted to the accused mainly on medical grounds and has also observed that till passing of the bail order, the investigation had not taken a concrete shape. It was for this reason that the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of his power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 439 was promoted to consider the legality and propriety of the order passed by the SDJM in admitting the accused petitioners to bail and issued a show cause notice. Procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be faulted with on any legitimate ground. The Supreme Court in State - Vs- Yaspal Singh Gill, AIR 1984 SC 1503 has held that the plea that the accused undergone a cardiac operation and need constant medical attention is not sufficient to order his bail. The priscm authorities will arrange for proper treatment whenever a need for it arises and the learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in his observation. Now, hypertension] and diabetes are such common ailments, may be set any one, it does not necessarily help an accused in obtaining a bail order, same is the case with peptic ulcer. In such cases, the Court must guard against such medical certificates when submitted in support of bail petitions, as they are invariably tailored for the occasion.

(3.) But surprisingly the revision petition is silent about it and the counsel has also not made any submission about it. None of the points as raised by the petitioner's counsel are of any avail to the petitioner. But going through the impugned order, the point that emerges from the order itself is: