Karnataka High Court
Dr Ankit Gautam vs State Of Karnataka on 26 April, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2727/2018
BETWEEN:
DR. ANKIT GAUTAM,
S/O MR. CHANDRA PAL,
R/O 17 A, MADHUPURAM COLONY,
BHITARLI KHAND,
IIM ROAD, HSM ROAD,
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH 226020.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI JATIN SEHGAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HASAN S. HIREMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY SIDDAPURA P. S.,
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 560001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
****
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.13/2018
OF SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 9(e),9(1) AND 10 OF PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AND SECTION
354 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.PC. The respondent - Police have registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.13/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 9(e), 9(l) and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 354 IPC.
2. Heard the petitioner's counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The complaint was made by Dr. V. Bhadrinarayan, Medical Superintendent of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, Bangalore about sexual misconduct committed by the petitioner on a female patient 3 admitted to the said hospital on 9.1.2018 for treatment in connection with her mental disorder. It is alleged that petitioner, who is a junior resident doctor in the said hospital sexually exploited the patient between the dates 10.1.2018 and 18.1.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been implicated in a false case. The patient was admitted to the hospital on 9.1.2018 as she was diagnosed for depressive disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder. She was under the supervision of an attendant provided to her by an NGO. It is highly impossible to say that the girl was exploited by the petitioner. He refers to a love letter written by the patient to the petitioner to argue that since he did not respond to that letter, a false complaint came to be registered. He further argues that the petitioner has not absconded and that he was always available at Bangalore and if the Investigating Officer had issued a notice to the petitioner 4 under Section 41A Cr.PC, he would have appeared before the Investigating Officer. Even now the petitioner is ready to cooperate with Investigating Officer. The petitioner has a threat of being arrested, therefore he is entitled to anticipatory bail.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the matter is still under investigation. The offences alleged against the petitioner are serious and anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
6. If the complaint is read, certain allegations made against the petitioner can be seen. The love letter produced by the petitioner is in Hindi. This letter cannot be considered at this stage. It must be proved that the letter is in the handwriting of the patient. However it is a fact that the petitioner was working as a Junior resident doctor. The other documents produced by the petitioner show that even after lodging of the complaint, he was very 5 much present at Bangalore. It is difficult to say that after lodging of the complaint, he was not available for investigation. As rightly argued by the petitioner's counsel, probably he would have appeared before the Investigation Officer if notice under Section 41A of Cr.PC had been issued to him. Moreover the interference by the petitioner in investigation process can be ruled out because he is kept under suspension. Patient is also under the supervision of an attendant provided by an NGO. It is not known why the patient did not bring the misbehaviour of the petitioner to the notice of authority of the hospital on the very first day. By considering all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted by subjecting him to certain conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed.
In the event of arrest of petitioner by the respondent-police station in connection with 6 Crime No.13/2018, he shall be released on bail on obtaining from him a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer. The petitioner is also subjected to the following conditions:
(i) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever his presence is necessary;
(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence;
(iii) He shall not directly or indirectly
threaten the witnesses; and
(iv) He shall mark his attendance before the
respondent-police station once in a
fortnight, preferably on Sunday in
between 09.00 am and 12.00 noon, till
the investigation is completed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Gss/-