Karnataka High Court
Sri Anish Kumar K @ Anish Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3172 OF 2020
BETWEEN
Sri Anish Kumar. K @ Anish Shetty
S/o Ravindra Shetty
Aged about 54 years
R/at No.28/1
Sri Krupa Nursing Home
Opp. To Brigade Metropolis
Garudacharpalya
Bengaluru - 560048.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Sandeep S. Patil, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka
Through Mahadevapura Police Station
Whitefield Sub-Division
Represented by its
Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru - 560 001.
... Respondent
(By Sri. Divakar .M Maddur, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to, enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.164/2020 of Mahadevapura P.S., Bengaluru City
for the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of
IPC.
:2:
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, through
video conferencing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.164/2020 of Mahadevapura Police Station for the alleged offences under Section 419 and 420 of IPC. The police are making hectic efforts to arrest this accused. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlarging the petitioner/accused on bail, in the event of his arrest by the police among the various grounds urged therein.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent - State through video conferencing.
3. It is stated in the complaint filed by one Indu Shekar Reddy that on 20.12.2019, the complainant went to Sai Krupa Nursing Home, situated at Garudacharpalya, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru for consulting with a doctor as he was suffering from fever and throat pain. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the said Nursing :3: Home on the next day and found that the Doctor who had examined was not present on the said day. Therefore, the complainant had questioned the same to the receptionist and the receptionist had replied stating that it was Dr.Anish R.Shetty who had examined and had made out the prescription to the complainant. However, in pursuance of the filing of complaint by the complainant, the crime came to be registered for the aforesaid offences stated in the FIR.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments by referring to the FIR recorded by the respondent police relating to the case in crime No.164/2020 that the petitioner is said to be arraigned as accused in the aforesaid crime is eligible to practice allopathy and prescribe allopathy drugs. The Indian Board of alternative Medicines has issued a certificate in the name of the petitioner to practice Indo - Allopathy Medicine. Therefore, the petitioner is qualified to practice Indo _ Allopathy and prescribe the allopathy drugs.
:4:
5. Subsequent to the registration of crime against the accused for the aforesaid offences, the police are making hectic efforts to arrest the accused without there being any reasons. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail and sought for allowing the petition.
6. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State by reiterating the averments made in the complaint and reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the police in Crime No.164/2020 contends that the case is still under investigation by the police relating to the allegation made against the accused that the accused is running Nursing Home by violating the KPME Act and running Sai Krupa Nursing Home and the permission of the same was cancelled. The investigation is still at primary stage. The accused is absconding since from the date of committing the alleged offence and that itself indicates that there are prima facie materials against the accused. Therefore, the accused is not deserving for anticipatory bail and he sought for dismissal of the bail petition.
:5:
7. Having regard to these contentions are concerned, it is relevant to refer the allegations made in the complaint filed against the accused and so also, reflected in the FIR which came to be registered by the police in Crime No.164/2020 for the aforesaid offences. The complaint is filed alleging that on 20.12.2019, the complainant - InduShekar reddy had been to Sai Krupa Nursing Home situated at Garudacharpalya, Whitefield, Bengaluru for consulting with a Doctor as he was feeling uncomfortable. It is averred in the complaint that the accused is not a qualified Doctor to practice as per the certificate issued by the Indian Board of Alternative Medicine and also to practice Indo - Allopathy medicine. But the counsel for the petitioner who referred in respect of his contention that document No.4 issued by the Electropathy Medico's of India (Central Board - India), Head Office: Bombay is a certificate issued to Dr.Anish R.Shetty, S/o Ravindra Shetty, R/o of "Sai Krupa" Majalaguthu, Kaup, Udupi, Karnataka and Document No.10 is the certificate issued by Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, affiliated with the Open International University for Complementary :6: Medicines (Medicina Alternativa). Whereas in this certificate of registration, it is relevant to refer the important directives stated therein. However, subsequent to the registration of crime against the accused, the case is still under investigation and moreover, the IO is required to collect the material documents and so also required to record the statement of witnesses. Therefore, I feel at this stage, it does not require any detail discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner as there are substance in the contention of the petitioner's counsel. Therefore, keeping in view of the contention as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is opined that the accused is deserving for anticipatory bail.
8. However, the learned HCGP for the State contends that if the petitioner/accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case and destroy the evidence. This apprehension expressed by learned HCGP could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the :7: interest of the prosecution. Whereas, the offences leveled against the accused in Crime No.164/2020 for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC is trivial offences before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Therefore, keeping in view the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is opined that the petitioner is deserving for bail.
9. For the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that petitioner/accused deserves to be granted bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner/Accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the I.O.
of Mahadevapura PS in Cr.No.164/2020 within a period of 20 days from the date of this order by executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- :8: with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of I.O., in the event of his arrest;
ii) Petitioner / Accused shall co-operate with the I.O. during the course of investigation;
iii) Petitioner/Accused shall not tamper or hamper with the case of prosecution witnesses;
iv) Petitioner/Accused shall not indulge in any other criminal activities henceforth. If Petitioner/Accused violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE DKB