SITA RAM versus BALBIR @ BALI .

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 15-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 984 
SITA RAM 
v. 
BALBIR @ BALI . 
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of2014) 
In 
(Criminal Appeal No.1834of2013) 
D~CEMBER 15, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.) 
Contempt of Court - Willful and deliberate violation of order 
of Supreme Court and obstruction in administration of justice -
Cancellation of bail of respondent-accused by Supreme Court order 
dated 24.10.2013 - Despite multiple non-bailable warrants issued 
0 
by trial court respondent-accused could not be arrested - Contempt 
petition filed - Respondent-accused failed to enter appearance 
despite service of notice - Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) 
on being asked by the Court, stated in his affidavit that as per the 
statement of the son of the accused he was admitted in a hospital 
and also produced Medical Certificate dated 7.2.2015 - The Court 
E directed personal appearance of SSP and Medical Director of the 
Hospital - The Court further directed enquiry as to whether the 
accused continued to avoid arrest and escaped with or without the 
help of the ho~pital - As per Enquiry Report the accused remained 
admitted in the hospital for a total 527 days on three occasions viz. 
F From 15.11.2013 to 25.12.2013, from 31.12.2013 to 9.4.2014, and 
from 11.4.2014 to 1.5.2015 - The Court further issued notice to the 
Managing Director of the hospital - Held: In the facts of the case, 
it is evident that the prolonged admission without any justifiable 
medical reason till action was taken by the Court, in contempt 
jurisdiction, was essentially to defeat the order dated 24.10.2013 
G passed by Supreme Court and repeated non-bailable warrants issued 
by the trial court - The accused, by disobeying the order of the 
Court is liable for committing civil contempt and by defiance of the 
order so passed has obstructed administration of justice and thus 
further liable for criminal contempt - Hospital was the party to the 
attempts on part of the accused to defeat the order passed by the 
H 
9~ 
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 
985 
Court by providing protection and asylum to the accused and thereby A 
obstructed administration of justice - Therefore, the Medical Director 
and the Managing Director of the hospital are liable for contempt 
of court - However, one more opportunity is given to all three 
contemnors - The conduct exhibited by concerned police officials 
in not ensuring compliance of orders passed by trial court calls for 
8 
strict administrative action - The Court expressed dissatisfaction 
regarding the conduct of the SSP. 
The Court 
HELD: 1. From the record and the Enquiry Report, it is 
clear that soon after the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this c 
Court (whereby bail order passed by High Court was set aside), 
the respondent remained admitted in the hospital for a total of 
527 days. Nothing has been placed on record, neither any medical 
condition nor 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 
D 
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 E 
in its Order dated 24.10.2013 and repeated non-bailable warrants 
Issued by the Trial Court. (Para 16)(1005-D-F) 
2. 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 
F 
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 
G 
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 H 
986 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.