Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ankita Kailash Khandelwal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 August, 2020
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
1
ITEM NO.8 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3083-
3085/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-02-2020
in IA No. 2/2019 21-02-2020 in IA No. 3/2019 21-02-2020 in IA No.
4/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(WITH OFFICE REPORT[TO BE TAKEN UP AS SECOND ITEM]
IA No. 69493/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 50143/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 68703/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 50142/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 11-08-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Kunal Cheema, AOR
Mr.Jagvijay Gandhi, Adv.
Mr.Aditi Parkhi, Adv.
Mr.Shubhangini Jain, Adv.
Mr.Pankaj Singhal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Indira Jaising Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR.
Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Prastut Dalvi, Adv.
Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Adv.
Ms. Disha Wadekar, Adv.
Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee, Adv.
Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH
Date: 2020.08.11
18:42:30 IST
Reason:
Mr. Sachin Patil Adv
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph Adv.
2
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate for the de facto-complainant, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned advocate for the MCI and Mr. Sachin Patil, learned advocate for the State.
The petitioners and two other accused were undergoing Post Graduation Degree Course in Gynecology and obstetrics and had completed two years out of three years’ course when they were taken in custody in connection with the crime in question. While allowing their applications for bail vide order dated 09.08.2019, the High Court, inter alia, imposed following condition:
“(iv) The appellants shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Agripada Police Station and more particularly, Topiwala National Medical College (B.Y.L. Nair Ch. Hospital).” Thereafter, Interim Application No.2/2019 in Criminal Appeal No.911/2019 was preferred by the petitioner and said two other accused seeking relaxation of aforesaid condition. The High Court summoned and heard Dr. Ganesh Shinde, Head of the Department, Gynecology, B.Y.L. Nair Charitable Hospital, Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation.
One of the issues which arose for consideration was if the 3 accused could not be allowed to come back to the institution to continue their course of study, whether they could be allowed migration to any other institution in Mumbai.
The High Court observed that in terms of the Regulations of the Maharashtra Medical Counsel of India, no such migration to any other college for post graduation course was permissible. After considering rival submissions, the High Court did not deem it appropriate to relax the condition.
While issuing notice, this Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and called for response from the Medical Council of India.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned advocate for the MCI submitted that migration would not be permissible and two instances adverted to by the petitioner namely, of (i) College at Jhajjar Haryana and
(ii) ESI-PGIMSR College, Andheri at Mumbai were in peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. He submitted that in the first case, the College itself was closed and therefore the entire batch of the students was accommodated in different colleges while in the second case there was a fire at the institution and therefore the students were temporarily shifted to another institution.
Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate submitted that issue of migration was completely unrelated to the matter concerning bail and the conditions imposed at the stage of grant of bail; that in case the petitioner was denied migration, the remedy was in taking appropriate proceedings in a manner known to 4 law and that since the Regulations were very clear that no migration would be permissible, the Court ought not to pass any orders on the plea of migration.
Our attention was also invited to the Communication dated 25.10.2019 which was premised on the condition imposed by the High Court in its order dated 09.08.2019.
In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to add B.Y.L. Nair Charitable Hospital, through its Director as one of the respondents to this petition. The Amended cause title be filed within two days from today.
Let notice be issued to the newly added respondent, returnable on 31.08.2020. Dasti in addition.
We understand that Statements of more than 250 witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Machinery under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. The State shall apprise the Court on the next occasion about the status and stage of trial. The State shall also inform the Court whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, migration of the petitioners could be permitted to any of the Hospital attached to Mumbai Municipal Corporation or of the State or to any Nursing Centres of the concerned hospitals.
(INDU MARWAH) (PRADEEP KUMAR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER