AMARINDER SINGH AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties for 1 -1/2 hours on this application for permission to visit London for medical tests and treatment by Capt. Amarinder Singh, former Chief Minister of Punjab. Learned Senior Counsel Sh. Ghai submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and also participated in interrogation on 28.5.2007. Learned Senior Counsel on instructions undertakes to supply the relevant documents required for investigation on or before 8.6.2007, and, only thereafter, the petitioner will leave the country on 10.6.2007. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was a high public functionary till recent past and he has sufficient means of his own to visit London for his medical tests and treatment. It is also submitted that looking to his background any apprehension about his non -availability for investigation in future appears to be absolutely unfounded. This is also a submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner is a kidney patient with high creatinine and urea, apart from suffering from a heart disease. It is contended that the petitioner may also be required to undergo some operation during his foreign trip as he has been detected to have developed some cysts of liver and kidney.

(2.) On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Ms.Reeta Kohli vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner be directed to appear before a Board of medical specialists for clearance before he is granted the permission to visit abroad for medical treatment. She also submitted that two co -accused namely Dayal Chand Garg and Chetan Gupta are presently lodged in judicial custody and if a challan is not put up after complete investigation within 60 days, they might be considered for grant of bail under Sec. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel further submitted that the non -availability of the petitioner in near future may seriously hamper the course of investigation.

(3.) On due consideration of rival submissions, I do not find any valid reason to refuse the prayer of the petitioner. I have also perused the medical papers submitted before the Court during the course of arguments relating to the treatments and medicines prescribed for the petitioner during his tenure as the Chief Minister of Punjab. The prescription and test reports also substantiate the apprehension of the petitioner about the nature of his ailments. Besides, since learned Senior Counsel undertakes to supply the documents as sought for by the investigating agency, the above submissions of learned State counsel appear to be a mere apprehension, without any substance. An investigating agency is supposed to act only within the parameters of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their status as such is nothing but an agent of the Court, though during the course of investigation it also becomes the duty of the Court to ensure impartiality and instill a sense of independence in the mind of the investigators. In this background I am not impressed by the aforesaid hypertechnical submissions of learned State counsel appearing for the investigating agency. Moreover, the petitioner has prayed for permission to visit London only for ten days for medical purposes from 10.6.2007 to 20.6.2007, and only in case of some operation, he may be required to extend the visit upto 25.7.2007.