1
IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU (CCH4)
Dated this the 27th day of JUNE, 2022
PRESENT :
Sri.K.L.Ashok, B.Com, LL.B.,
XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge &
Prl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
PETITIONER/
ACCUSED:
Smt. Ramya. G. C
W/o Sri. Ramesh B. Gowda
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.325/1,
5th Cross, 14th Main Road,
RMV Extension,
Sadashiva Nagar,
Bengaluru560 080.
(By Sri.Praveen Kumar Muguli, Advocate)
Vs
RESPONDENT:
Central Bureau of Investigation
(ACB)
Office of Superintendent of Police,
No.36, Bellary Road, KGH Layout,
Bengaluru560 032.
(By Learned Senior Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
ORDER ON THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 439(1) (b) R/W 438 OF CR.P.C. BY THE
PETITIONER- SMT. RAMYA G.C
The Petitioner has filed this petition under section
439 (1) (b) r/w 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking the relaxation of
condition No.2 and 5 imposed on the petitioner while
granting anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.5325/2021 registered
against the accused for the offences punishable under
Section 120-B r/w 420, 409 and 477-A of IPC along with
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act (The Prevention of
Corruption Act -1988).
2. The petitioner by name Smt. Ramya G.C and her
husband Sri. Ramesh B. Gowda were accused of
committing the above offences and accordingly a case
was registered against them in R.C No.16(A)/2020. Being
apprehensive of their arrest in the said case, they
approached this court by invoking section 438 of Cr.P.C in
Crl.
Miscellaneous
5888/2021 respectively.
Petition
Nos.5325/2021
and
On hearing the objections of
prosecution and arguments of both side the petitions were
3
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
allowed and the petitioners were granted the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
3. While granting the benefit of anticipatory bail this
court imposed several conditions out of which the
condition No.2 was to surrender their passport before the
investigating officer. The condition No.5 was not to leave
India without prior permission of this Court.
4.
Now it is averred that master Ved Ramesh,
aged about 14 years, who is the minor son of the
petitioner is suffering from intestine ulcer and needs a
special and modern surgery for his survival. Therefore,
the petitioner and her husband would like to take their son
to the USA for specialized treatment. Hence, they have
moved Crl.Misc.No.6036/2022 and Crl.Misc. 6037/2022
seeking relaxation of condition No.2 and 5 referred supra.
5. The Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has filed his
objections reiterating the facts of the case.
It is also
4
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
alleged that world class medical facilities are available in
Bengaluru itself and the petitioners can avail the same.
That there are possibilities of the petitioners absconding
and they would not be available for the investigation.
Accordingly, has sought dismissal of the petition.
6.
For disposal of this petition, following points
arise for my consideration:
1. Whether Petitioner/accused has made
out sufficient grounds for relaxing the
condition No.2 and 5 by permitting the
petitioner to travel abroad to USA ?
2.
What order?
7. Both side have argued in par with their pleading.
Having heard the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for Petitioner/accused and the learned Senior
Public Prosecutor on the petition and on considering the
relevant materials on record, my findings to the above
5
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
points are hereunder:
Point No. 1: In the affirmative
Point No.2:
As per final order, for the
following:
REASONS
Point No.1: Though the prosecution have
8.
impressed the Court with respect to the gravity of the
offence, it is pertinent to note that same has already
been considered while granting anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. A repeated discussion regarding the crime
and its seriousness are not warranted in this petition.
Here it is necessary to restrict to the relief sought by the
petitioner.
9. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s
minor son by name Ved Ramesh is suffering from
Chronic Active colitis which suggests Crohn’s disease.
The petitioner has also produced medical certificate in
support of the same. Admittedly, this court is not an
6
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
expert in the medical field. But judicial notice can be
taken that Crohn’s disease though is not life threatening
with proper treatment still is a serious disease that
involves specialized medical care. When a minor child
gets this disease it becomes all the more serious.
Further, as argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
there is no conservative treatment or the cure except for
the surgery. Therefore, it appears that these petitioners
have to submit their minor son for the surgery.
10. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued
that it is right of the patient to choose the hospital and
the petitioner cannot be force to obtain medical
treatment here at Bengaluru against their choice and
better judgment. While it is true that world class medical
facility is available at Bengaluru, some specialized
treatment may not be available here. Further, the
medical advancement of developed countries like the
USA is far superior. Therefore, it appears natural that the
7
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
petitioners would like to take their minor son to the USA
to get the best of available medical treatment. No fault
can be found with the petitioners as they are more
concerned about the health of their minor child.
11.
The
prosecution
have
expressed
their
apprehension that the accused may flee the country.
This apprehension can be pacified by requiring proper
security from the accused for their return. By requiring
the accused to deposit cash security apart from
obtaining sureties it can be ensure that these accused
would return to India.
12. It was also expressed by the prosecution that
these accused may not attend the investigation. Here it
is necessary to note that the case in RC.No.16(A)/2020
was registered nearly two years ago in the year 2020. In
fact, the accused were granted anticipatory bail nearly a
year ago on 13.08.2021. There are no allegations that
8
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
these accused have not co-operated in the investigation.
Such being the case restricting their travel for an
indefinite period of time would not served any useful
purpose
but
on
the
other
hand
would
cause
unnecessary hardship and prejudice to the accused.
13. No doubt the accused are alleged to have
committed serious Economic Offences. But it should not
be forgotten that the basis of our criminal jurisprudence
presumes the innocence of the accused.
14. It is not that the accused want to travel abroad
for a holiday or for pleasure. On the other hand they
want to travel to the USA for the purpose of obtaining
medical treatment to their minor son.
Denying their
prayer inter-alia would amount to denying the medical
treatment for a child which would not be justified.
Therefore, there are sufficient and reasonable grounds
to relax the conditions No.2 and 5 imposed in
9
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
Crl.Misc.5325/2021 and 5888/2021 to meet the ends of
justice.
Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative.
Point No.2:
15.
As discussed earlier, sufficient surety and cash
security has to be obtained from the accused for their
prompt return to India. The fact that accused are opting
to travel abroad to the USA for getting medical treatment
to their minor son speaks that they are economically well
placed.
Therefore, requiring each of the accused to
deposit a cash security of Rs.5,00,000/- would be well
within their means and would also ensure their prompt
return to India. Since, this is a refundable cash security,
no prejudice or hardship would be caused to the
accused as they would be entitled for refund of the same
on their return. At the same time taking surety of two
individuals one of whom must be related to accused
would also encourage the prompt return of the accused.
10
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
These conditions would also pacify the apprehension of
the prosecution. As the surety would be for a limited
period and limited purpose without curtailing the liberty
of the accused, it would not cause any hardship or
prejudice to the accused. Accordingly, in the light of
above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by Petitioner/accused
Smt. Ramya G.C under Section 439 (1) (b) r/w
438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The following
conditions No.2 and 5 imposed in Crl.Misc.
No.5325/2021 stand relaxed as follows:
The condition No.2 requiring the petitioner
to surrender her passport to the investigating
officer is relaxed and the passport of the petitioner
is ordered to be returned to her under due
acknowledgment.
11
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
The condition No.5 which restricted the
travel of the
petitioner is relaxed and the
petitioner is permitted to leave India for the
medical treatment of her son master Ved Ramesh
in the USA for a period of 3 months from the date
of travel.
Subject to following conditions :1.
The
petitioner
shall
deposit
a
refundable cash security of Rs.5,00,000/(Five Lakh) to ensure her return to India.
2.
The
petitioner
shall
execute
a
personal bond for Rs.5,00,000/- and shall
also furnish two solvent sureties for the
likesum. The
sureties
shall
be
local
sureties out of which one shall be related
to the petitioner.
3.
The
petitioner
shall
furnish
her
detailed travel itinerary well in time to the
Court.
12
4.
The
Crl.Misc.No:6037/2022
petitioner
shall
furnish
her
address and details of her stay in the USA.
5. The petitioner shall surrender her
passport on her return to India.
(Typed on my dictation by the typist on the computer corrected by
me and then pronounced in the open court on this 27 th day of June,
2022).
(K.L ASHOK),
XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
& Prl. Special Judge for CBI cases,
Bengaluru.