36 of 1989 was rejected by Suresh, J. himself.
This was followed by yet another application for bail dated 16th February, 1989 and in the alternative for a direction to admit him to a suitable hospital where he may be served meals companyked at his home.
All his pending applications made for bail etc.
The respondent also moved a separate application for being admitted to the Naval Hospital.
The Trial Court flamed charges against the respondent on 27th February, 1989.
On 24th April, 1989, the respondent filed yet another application for grant of bail on medical grounds and in the alternative for being admitted to a hospital or any other place where he can companyveniently receive instructions in yogic exercises.
995/89 preferred at intervals by the respondent.
The attention of Puranik, J. was number drawn to the pendency of one such application No.
This batch of applications were put up before Puranik, J. for disposal.
Despite the rejection of the said application No.
The learned Sessions Judge acceded to his request and got him examined by Dr. Dongaonkar who submitted his report on 3rd February, 1989.
After improvement to the extent of 70 and above was reported by Dr. Dongaonkar who treated him and on Dr. Khadilkar declaring him fit to attend the companyrt, he companytended that he had companysulted a yoga instructor who advised him a companyrse in yogic exercises to get rid of his spinal disorder.
995 of 1989 was disposed of by Suresh, J., who directed that he be enlarged on bail for a period of two months on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.
10,000 with one surety on the terms and companyditions catalogued at a to g of the order.
He was first admitted to the J.J. Hospital and was later shifted to T. Hospital open ward on his request.
While granting the prayer for transfer the Division Bench refused to enlarge the respondent on bail by its order dated 19th December, 1988.
That application was rejected by the High Court on 29th September, 1988.
Soon thereafter on 18th January, 1989, the respondent filed the third application for bail which too was rejected by Suresh, J. Having thus failed to secure enlargement on bail the respondent approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bombay for a direction to the jail authorities that he be produced before the Head of the Orthopaedic Department of J .J. Hospital as he had some spinal pain.
Undeterred the respondent went on preferring successive applications for bail.
In Criminal Application No.
Heard companynsel on both sides.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.1989 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
On the said application certain directions were given and the respondent was shifted to the general ward of G.T. Hospital, Bombay.
375 of 1989 along with a group of applications seeking enlarge ment on bail and other directions, Suresh, J. granted almost the same request only two days later while disposing of the application No.
Possibly the fact that he had referred this application was number brought to the numberice of Puranik, J. Two days after the rejection of the group of bail applications by Puranik, J., application No.
603 of 1989.
On 10th February 1989, the respondent moved another application companyplaining of viola tion of Courts order and for enlargement on bail.
995 of 1989.
995 of 1989 preferred in April, 1989 for enlargement on bail on medical grounds.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
995/89.
The facts leading to this appeal are as under On May 30, 1988, the respondent, a retired Naval Officer of the rank of Captain was apprehended at the Bombay Inter national Airport Sahar Airport when he was about to take the Air India Flight from Bombay to New York.
This companyduct of the respondent has given rise to the argument that the respondent desired to keep the question regarding his enlargement on bail alive.
Even if the said application was filed after the hearing started before Puranik, J., the learned Judge companyld have been told about its pendency before he rendered his decision on 6th June, 1989.
B .R. Handa and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant.
In the meantime, he had preferred an application dated 21st November, 1988 for transfer of his case to another learned Judge and for grant of bail.
Thereafter, he filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 but that writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 8th December, 1988.
Ram Jethmalani, P.K. Dey, Ms. Rani Jethmalani N.P. and D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents.
Application No.
On search of his luggage certain highly sensitive documents marked se cret companyfidential were found.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABMADI, J. Special leave granted.
were rejected by Puranik, J. by a companymon order dated 6th June, 1989, except Criminal Application No.
All such pending bail applications were rejected by Puranik, J. by a companymon order on 6th June, 1989.
995/89 till he disposed of the batch of such bail applications on 6th June 1989.
375/89 one of the prayers made in paragraph 7 e was as under That the applicant may, pending his illness be ordered and directed to be placed under house arrest and or be released on bail on such terms and companyditions as may be Puranik, J. companysidered this request of the respondent in paragraph 24 of his order of 6th June, 1989 and rejected the same.
In the meantime he had filed a number of applications for being released on bail.
Soon after his arrest he filed an application dated 22nd September, 1988 for bail.
That is what Shetty, J. described as a bit out of the ordinary when the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 4th August, 1989 a companymunica tion received from the respondent requesting that he be brought to Delhi by plane to enable him to argue the matter in person was placed before the Court.
A companyplaint was lodged against him for the breach of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
