ORDER
J.B.Goel, J.
1. By this petition the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for seeking permission to go abroad.
2. The petitioner along with others is facing trial on charges under Section 420/120B IPC. He was arrested on 2.5.1996 and was admitted to bail vide order dated 7.11.1996 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [Criminal Appeal No. 1912/96 (S.L.P. Crl. No. 3377/96)]. The bail was granted inter alias subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country.
3. This condition was, however, modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 588 of 1998 in Crl. A. No. 1912/96 vide order dated January 29, 1998 to the effect that the petitioner will not leave the country unless permitted by the court on such conditions as the court may impose in that event when his application for permission to go abroad inter alias on the ground of treatment of his ailments was also declined on the ground that there was no material to suggest that his alleged ailments are not treatable in India satisfactorily.
4. The case is still under trial before Special Judge. The petitioner again filed application before the Special Judge seeking permission to go abroad for the purpose of medical treatment. This application was disallowed by the learned Special Judge on 1.5.1998 and also by this Court on May 8, 1998. The Petitioner's Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. Mis. No. 1743/98) in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against that order was filed but withdrawn on 25.5.1998 on his statement that he will approach the High Court again after obtaining proper material.
5. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. The petitioner in support has filed a certificate dated 6th April, 1998 (Annexure-P4) issued by Dr. Raman Puri, Senior Consultant Cardiologist Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, New Delhi wherein it has been certified that the petitioner has been under his treatment for the last 7 years, he is suffering from multiple complex problems such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular disease (TIA) which requires decompression surgery at one of the best Orthopedic centres in the world 'at the earliest, to get best possible long term results, thus preventing him from being crippled for life'.
6. This certificate was available when the application filed earlier was disallowed. This certificate does not indicate that proper treatment was not available in any Hospital in India or even in the Apollo Hospitals where Dr. Puri was a Senior Consultant Cardiologist and obviously, it was not found proper material.
7. However, now the petitioner has filed a letter dated May 24, 1998 (Annexure -P5) alleged to have been received by him from one Dr. Dan Nicolle of Paris, France where he has suggested inter alias as under :
'After a profound review of your case with my colleagues, it seems, unfortunately, that you need to undergo surgery. I would like to insist that you should do so rapidly. Please do not delay. I have contacted one of the top Orthopedic surgeon in Europe who is ready to perform the surgery on you using the latest surgical methodology and technique only available in Europe (France, England and Germany) and in the United States.....'
8. Learned Addl. Solicitor has contended that it is not known whether Dr. Nicolle is a medical practitioner and if so about his special qualifications and competence so as to have given such an opinion. It is also not disclosed in his said letter or in this petition by the petitioner as to what material was available for the doctor who may have given opinion suggesting operation and that this is not the material which may justify reconsideration of the earlier decision of this Court rejecting his application on 8.5.1998.
9. After this petition was filed, this Court vide order dated 8.6.1998 felt it appropriate that the petitioner be examined by a Board of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) about the present condition of the petitioner and whether his ailments can be properly treated in India.
10. The petitioner was examined by a Board of Doctors consisting of Dr. S. Bhan, Prof. Head Deptt. of Orthopedics, Dr. P.P. Kotwal, Prof. Deptt. of Orthopedics, Dr. M. Behari Addl. Prof. Deptt. of Neurology, Dr. A. K. Mohapatra, Prof. Deptt. of Neurosurgery and Dr. Sidhartha Satpathy, Sr. Resident, Deptt. of Hosp. Admn. and the said Board in its letter dated June 27, 1998 after investigation including MRI evaluation has opined as under :-
The operation of decompression was not advised due to following reasons :-
(i) some or most of radiculopathy may be due long standing diabetes and it is not possible to differentiate between the radiculopathy caused by diabetes or other degenerative lesions as reported in the MRI.
(ii) In such cases there is no way to predict if radiculopathy will improve after operation.
(iii) Psychological factors also play a vital role in the response to treatment.
(iv) The facility for such decompression is available at AIIMS.
2. The surgery of spinal decompression is available at all tertiary care hospitals in the metropolitan cities of India.
3. In this type of case the board feels that surgery is not advisable at this stage.'
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner being a citizen of India has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and for that purpose he is entitled to get medical treatment from a doctor of his choice either in India or abroad and that as the Board of AIIMS has opined that surgery cannot be done, in that case it cannot be said that proper treatment is available in India. Moreover his going abroad is not going to affect the trial of the case as he will come as and when directed by the court even after getting pre-operation advice from a competent doctor abroad and for that purpose, he may be given permission only up to 28.8.1998 and during this period no case is fixed for trial. He also submits that the petitioner has no objection if the evidence of any of the witnesses is recorded during his absence.
12. Whereas learned Addl. Solicitor General has contended that the bail was granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that he will not leave the country and this condition was modified to the extent that he could leave the country with permission of the trial court; the order dated January 29, 1998 clearly enjoins that his case could be considered only if his ailments could not be treated in India satisfactorily and in this case a Board of a highly specialised medical institution has opined that it is not safe to advise for operation in this present state of his health, the petitioner himself has not alleged or disclosed what treatment he may have been getting and from whom, nor he has filed any certificate from any doctor or any specialised institution in India that the treatment for his ailments is not available in India. He has even not filed any opinion contrary to that given by the Board of AIIMS. He even does not claim that he had even got any treatment from AIIMS. No new material has thus been placed on record justifying that the petitioner cannot be treated in India satisfactorily and hence no ground is made out to review the earlier order dated May 8, 1998.
13. Learned Addl. Solicitor General has also referred to a letter dated 8th July, 1998 received from the First Secretary, (E&T;) Embassy of India in Paris who has verified that Dr. Dan Nicolle was not registered with 'BORDE DES MEDECINS' where all the doctors in France are required to be registered and for this reason also it cannot be said that the petitioner had obtained a proper and bona fide advice from a competent doctor abroad. Respondent had filed an affidavit to this effect to which there is no rebuttal.
14. As already noticed, the petitioner could be allowed to go abroad for valid and justifiable grounds. His request for permission to go abroad for medical treatment was considered earlier and was rejected by the Supreme Court on January 29, 1998 and by this Court on 8.5.1998. In view of the material available, it cannot be said that satisfactory treatment for his ailments is not available in India.
15. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the request of the petitioner for permission to go abroad for medical treatment is reasonable, bona fide and justified.
16. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
17. For the same reasons, Crl.M.(M) 1709/98 and Crl. M.(M) 1650/98 are also dismissed.