Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Birpal Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-17363-2022
Dr. Birpal Singh Yadav Vs. State of MP
Gwalior, Dated : 08/04/2022
Shri V.D. Sharma, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for State.
Shri Purushottam Rai, Counsel for the complainant.
Case diary is available.
This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.101/2018 registered at Police Station Dabra District Gwalior for
offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 120-B of IPC.
According to the prosecution case, one FIR was lodged against
co-accused Smt. Ragini Pandey and Dharmendra Pandey for offence
under Section 307 of IPC. The co-accused Ragini Pandey filed an
application for anticipatory bail before this Court along with a medical
certificate to the effect that at the time of the incident, she was
hospitalized in Civil Hospital, Dabra.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court by order dated 10.07.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.7358/2017 had granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused Ragini
Pandey. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application for
cancellation of anticipatory bail on the ground that the medical
certificate obtained by the co-accused Ragini Pandey was forged
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-17363-2022
Dr. Birpal Singh Yadav Vs. State of MP
document and in fact, she was sitting in the police station.
Accordingly, an enquiry was directed to be conducted by CMHO and
ultimately, it was found that the medical certificate relied upon by the
co-accused Ragini Pandey was forged document which was prepared
by Dr. Virendra Gaur as well as by other employees of the hospital by
manipulating the official record. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail
granted to the co-accused Ragini Pandey was recalled. Co-accused
Ragini Pandey filed SLP against cancellation of her anticipatory bail
order before the Supreme Court which too was dismissed by the
Supreme Court by order dated 12.06.2018 passed in SLP SLP (Cri)
No.4986/2018 with a direction to the co-accused Ragini Pandey to
surrender herself within a period of seven days. However,
undisputedly the co-accused Ragini Pandey took more than three years
to surrender.
Be that as it may.
Since it was found that the co-accused Dr. Virendra Gaur and
other employees posted in Civil Hospital, Dabra had prepared forged
documents, therefore, Crime No.101/2018 was registered against Dr.
Virendra Gaur and others. Police after completing the investigation
filed the charge-sheet. While the evidence of the complainant was
being recorded, an application under Section 319 of CrPC was filed
seeking summoning of the applicant and some more persons as an
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-17363-2022
Dr. Birpal Singh Yadav Vs. State of MP
additional accused in the case. The allegations against the applicant
are that the incident of Section 307 of IPC took place on 04.06.2017
and one NCR report was lodged by Dharmendra on 05.06.2017 in
respect of the same offences.
Prior to lodging of NCR report, the applicant had done MLC of
the co-accused Ragini Pandey and Dharmedra Pandey on 05.06.2017,
whereas the applicant was not on duty on 05.06.2017. It was further
alleged that whenever a outdoor patient visits the hospital, then first of
all his name is entered in the register of outdoor patient and only
thereafter he is sent to the doctors for medical examination. It is
submitted that although the name of Smt. Ragini Pandey is mentioned
in OPD register of 05.06.2017, but even the name of Dharmendra
Pandey was not mentioned, which clearly shows that Dharmendra
Pandey was not present in the hospital, in spite of that, the applicant
had prepared one MLC of Dharmendra Pandey to show that at 12:15
PM on 05.06.2017, he had medically examined Dharmendra Pandey
and was found that he was making complaint of pain on arm, but no
external injury was found. It is submitted that as per the duty chart, the
applicant was not on duty on 05.06.2017 and thus, it is clear that he
had prepared a forged medical document to facilitate the co-accused
Dharmendra Pandey as well as Smt. Ragini Pandey to lodge counter-
report against the complainant which was ultimately registered as
4
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-17363-2022
Dr. Birpal Singh Yadav Vs. State of MP
NCR report.
By referring to the duty chart, which is a part of the charge-
sheet and is at page No. 124 of compilation, it is submitted that as per
the duty chart, the present applicant was on duty from 8 AM till 8 PM
of 04.06.2017. It is further submitted that it is also mentioned in the
duty chart that in case, if any doctor wants to go on leave or he has to
go on tour, then by maintaining the mutual cooperation, they can make
their own arrangement by informing the office of CMHO in this
regard. It was further mentioned that the concerning doctor shall
remain in the Civil Hospital, Dabra from 8 AM to 8 AM (24 hours)
and shall leave the hospital only after his reliever comes on duty. It is
submitted that the applicant had some personal work, therefore, he
requested Dr. D.R. Sagar to perform emergency duty in his place and,
accordingly, on 04.06.2017 Dr. D.R. Sagar was on emergency duty in
place of the applicant and the applicant had performed emergency
duty in place of Dr. D.R. Sagar on 05.06.2017 and that's why the
applicant had examined Dharmendra Pandey and Ragini Pandey on
05.06.2017.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. By referring to the attendance register produced by the applicant himself, it is submitted by the counsel for the State as well as the complainant that it is clear from the attendance register that 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-17363-2022 Dr. Birpal Singh Yadav Vs. State of MP the applicant and Dr. D.R. Sagar were not on duty on 04.06.2017, and the applicant remained on unauthorised absence on 04.06.2017.
So far as the submission that he had changed his duty with Dr. D.R. Sagar is concerned, the same is also falsified from the fact that in the attendance register, Dr. D.R. Sagar had not signed on 04.06.2017 and merely night duty is mentioned in front of Dr. D.R. Sagar, however, it does not contain his signature. At the most, it shows that Dr. D.R. Sagar had performed duty from 8 PM to 8 AM on 04.06.2017
- 05.06.2017. Thus, it is submitted that in case, if the attendance register relied upon by the applicant is taken on its face value, then it is clear that the applicant did not attend the Civil Hospital, Dabra on 04.06.2017 without any authority of law as well as without informing the office of CMHO. Even otherwise, it is submitted that when Dharmendra Pandey had visited Civil Hospital, Dabra as his name is not mentioned in the OPD register, then preparing his forged MLC clearly indicates that he too was hand in gloves with the co-accused Dharmendra Pandey and Ragini Pandey in order to facilitate them to create a false allegations of assault by the complainant.
In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in case, where a patient is critical, then it is not necessary that his name should be entered in the OPD register and doctor can always attend such patient thereby giving complete go-bye to the procedure. 6
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-17363-2022 Dr. Birpal Singh Yadav Vs. State of MP However, the counsel for the applicant could not point out as to how Dharmendra Pandey and Ragini Pandey can be placed under the category of critical patients as no injury whatsoever was found on their body and they were not suffering from any serious ailment. Counsel for the applicant also could not point out any document to show that the applicant had ever informed the office of CMHO, Gwalior with regard to his mutual exchange of his duties with Dr. D.R. Sagar.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations against the applicant are that he had prepared a false certificate in order to facilitate the co-accused persons to lodge a false counter FIR against complainant as well as the said false documents can be utilized in judicial proceedings. This act of the applicant cannot be said to be a part of his duty.
Accordingly, the application for grant of anticipatory bail fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.04.11 17:42:50 +05'30'