Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Kumar vs The State Of M.P. on 13 October, 2020
Author: Shailendra Shukla
Bench: Shailendra Shukla
1 MCRC-34726-2020 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-34726-2020 (NARENDRA KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF M.P.) 4 Indore, Dated : 13-10-2020 Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vivek Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri K. Goyal, public prosecutor for State.
Shri Gaurav Panchal, Advocate for the complainant. IA.No.6425/2020, I.A.No.6380/2020, are application seeking removal of defects. These applications pertained to not filing the receipt of Court fee. It has been mentioned that the court fee has been paid but the receipt could not be generated and defect has been sought to be cured.
After due consideration, the defects stand cured. I.A.No.6701/2020, is an application filed under Section 301 of Cr.P.C which has been strongly objected by learned counsel for the applicant submitting that the objector is not the complainant. The objector is Dharmendra Sahu who admittedly is not the complainant in the matter. Complainants are Hazarilal Dangi and Tanveer. While Hazarilal has made objection in respect of registration of Maa Jalpa Nursing Institute and Tanveer, complainant has made objection in respect of registration of Sainath Hospital.
After due consideration, the objection on behalf of the objector is not liable to be considered because he is not the complainant. Application under Section 301 of Cr.P.C stands dismissed.
Submissions on application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant o f anticipatory bail were heard. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in C rime No.345/2020, registered at police station Khilchipur for allegedly committing the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
In the application it has been mentioned that applicant has not committed any offence; that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that he Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 14/10/2020 15:16:31 2 MCRC-34726-2020 is suffering from serious disease which is called 'Tetany'.
Learned counsel has raised his submission basically on the disease of the applicant. As per the application, Tetany is disease which results from very low calcium in the blood and due to this situation Hypocalcemia is caused, which result in involuntary muscle cramps in hand and feet, even extending up to larynx or voice box which causes breathing problem and patient is required to carry injection with him which needs to be administered at the time of emergency.
Learned counsel has drawn the Court's attention to certificate dated 10.8.2020 issued by medical officer CHC Khilchipur.
Another document dated 4.11.2017 has also been filed. Pathology report has also been submitted showing below normal serum calcium in the blood and other medical documents are also placed on record, one of which is on the Letter Pad of Dr. Deepak Parikh who is an endocrinologist. OPD document of AIIMS hospital is also placed on record. A document of Aradhya Maternity and Kidney Hospital, Bhopal is also placed on record.
In these documents, the applicant has been shown to be suffering from recurrent Tetany disease.
In view of the above condition, the anticipatory bail has been sought. Heard learned counsel for the State who has opposed the anticipatory bail application.
Considered.
The applicant Narendra Kumar Verma has been accused of fabricating a false inspection report in respect of Sainath Hospital at Khilchipur and Nursing Home, whereas in reality there was no such hospital in existence. Co- accused Ashok Kumar had applied for registration of this hospital and for the purpose of registration the CHMO of Rajgarh Dr. K.K. Shrivastava had constituted a team of doctors one of whom was the present applicant. This team gave a favourable report on the basis of which registration was recommended by K.K. Shrivastava who himself turned out to be a main Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 14/10/2020 15:16:31 3 MCRC-34726-2020 conspirator.
This Court while considering the anticipatory bail application of Dr. K.K. Shrivastava has observed that the inspection team did not submit any photograph of the site where hospital purportedly existed and the inspection report was signed by the applicant leaving number entries blank, which were extremely important to be filled and it appeared that the site had not even been visited.
Learned public prosecutor for State has submitted that there is a clear cut conspiracy showing involvement of the members of the inspection team with Dr. K.K. Shrivastava, who was able to recommend registration only on the basis of the report submitted by the inspection team.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that once Dr.K.K. Shrivastava is interrogated in custody, the conspiracy theory would be clarified even further.
Today this Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of another member of the inspection team namely Dr. Rajesh Kumar. The case of the present applicant is not different from that of Dr. Rajesh Kumar.
Hence, no case for anticipatory bail is made out in above circumstances.
As far as anticipatory bail on the ground of his disease is concerned, it has been mentioned by the learned counsel that the applicant is to carry a medication (injection etc) which has to be administered if suddenly emergency arises. Regarding this submission, the Investigating Officer is directed to permit the applicant to carry with himself appropriate medication when he is taken into custody and due care shall be taken by Investigating Officer to afford immediate medical facility to the applicant in case need so arises.
After due consideration, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant stands rejected.
Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 14/10/2020 15:16:314 MCRC-34726-2020 (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE SS/-
Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 14/10/2020 15:16:31