Gujarat High Court
Bhaveshbhai @ Bhavik Laljibhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 January, 2022
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/17204/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 17204 of 2021
==========================================================
BHAVESHBHAI @ BHAVIK LALJIBHAI KUKADIYA (PATEL)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT (3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 06/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11823017210339 registered with Rajpipla Police Station, Narmada for offences punishable under sections 308 and 304 of IPC.
2. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that in all six FIRs have been registered against the applicant herein for the same set of facts and allegations and in connection with the earlier five complaints, the applicant has been released on bail. The main allegation against the applicant is that he was working as a Doctor though he was not holding any recognized medical degree to practice as such and on the basis of forged / false certificates, he carried out practice as a Doctor at a public Hospital and derived illegal Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 17:41:31 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/17204/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022 monetary gains and also caused the death of several patients whom he had treated.
2.1 It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant had played with the life of around 200 patients and about 39 patients had died as a result of his treatment. In the impugned complaint, the offence under sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 406 and 420 of IPC and sections 30 & 35 of the Gujarat Medical Practitioners Act have been subsequently added. It was pointed out that in the earlier FIRs too, all the aforesaid sections were involved and hence, there could not be any subsequent FIR with the same set of facts and allegations. The police ought to have added the sections in the charge-sheet filed in connection with the first FIR in continuation of the allegations under Sections 304 and 308 of IPC.
2.2 Learned advocate contended that no medical records form part of the charge-sheet papers, which goes to show that there was no negligence on the part of the applicant to term it as culpable homicide. The statements of other patients, who had allegedly taken treatment at the hands of the applicant, have not been recorded nor the post-mortem notes have been produced on record, which suggests that no death was caused on account of the alleged act of the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant was practising as such for the period from July 2017 to 06.02.2021 in a public Hospital and hence, it was Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 17:41:31 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/17204/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022 the primary responsibility of the Hospital administration to verify the medical degree of the applicant, which has not been done. It was, therefore, prayed that the present application may be allowed and the applicant herein may be released on regular bail.
3. Opposing the application, Mr. Pranav Trivedi learned APP contended that it was during the course of investigation that certain facts came to the knowledge of the police and therefore, under new facts, the impugned FIR came to be lodged. Hence, it cannot be said that for the same set of facts, multiple FIRs have been registered. It is submitted that it was a continuous criminal act of the applicant and there would not be any possibility of getting any PM notes since the death was under the criminal act of the applicant, which could be found out later on during the course investigation. However, since the applicant was a fake Doctor and had a criminal intention, he treated the patients as such, which resulted into the death of 39 patients. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant.
4. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. The applicant was working in a public hospital and the period of commission of alleged offence is said to be from 2018 to January 2021. No medical record has been produced to suggest the course of treatment adopted by Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 17:41:31 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/17204/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022 the applicant and the investigating agency is unable to fortify the facts by way of post-mortem report of any of the patients, who had allegedly died on account of the treatment given by the applicant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since trial will take its own time to conclude, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicant.
5. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11823017210339 registered with Rajpipla Police Station, Narmada on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned trial court;
[e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 17:41:31 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/17204/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022 without prior permission of the concerned trial court;
6. The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.
(GITA GOPI, J) PRAVIN KARUNAN Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 17:41:31 IST 2022