Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Veerendra Singh Gaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021
Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated:1/04/2021
Shri V.K. Saxena, Senior Advocate with Shri Yash Saxena,
Advocate for applicant through video conferencing.
Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 4/2/2021 in connection with Crime No.101/2018 registered at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 120-B of IPC.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, the applicant was working as a Doctor and was posted in Government Hospital, Dabra, District Gwalior. According to the prosecution case, the applicant had prepared a false medical report of one Ragini Pandey, which was used for obtaining anticipatory bail from this Court. It is submitted that the outdoor patient slip is prepared by the employees, and the names of the patients are also filled in by the employees. The doctors are never required to identify the patients and they simply examine the patients and write their prescriptions on the OPD slip. It is submitted that in the present case, OPD slip was prepared by one Jaswant, who has 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. already been granted bail by the trial court by order dated 21/1/2021. It is further submitted that anticipatory bail was granted to Ragini Pandey by order dated 10/7/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.7358/2017. Thereafter, the complainant-Mukesh Parashar filed an application for cancellation of bail, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017, on the ground that the anticipatory bail has been obtained by relying upon a forged medical certificate. This Court by order dated 27/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017 came to a conclusion that Smt. Ragini Pandey had obtained anticipatory bail order from this Court by filing a forged medical certificate and accordingly, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Ragini Pandey. It is further submitted that on the basis of the statement made by the Public Prosecutor, this Court also held that it is hoped and believed that the undertaking given by the Public Prosecutor that strict departmental action as well as under Criminal Law would be taken, will be honoured by the department in its letters and spirit. It is submitted that in view of the observations made by this Court, the police registered an FIR and the applicant has been arrested. It is further submitted that while deciding the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Smt. Ragini Pandey, it was not necessary for this Court to consider the undertaking given by the Public Prosecutor and should not have passed any observation. To buttress 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. his contentions, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State Represented by Inspector of Police Vs. M. Murugeson and another reported in 2020 (2) MPLC 15 (S.C.) in which it has been held that while deciding the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. the jurisdiction of the High Court comes to an end after the application is decided and should not have passed any further direction.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that the practice of issuing false medical certificate so that the accused can take advantage in the criminal trial is increasing day by day, which is required to be dealt with firmly. It is not the case of issuance of a false certificate, but it also amounts to playing fraud on the Court, because the false certificate was issued with a solitary intention that the same may be utilized by the suspect/accused either for obtaining the anticipatory bail or taking advantage in Criminal Trial, by pleading plea of alibi.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is not out of place to mention here that the order dated 27/3/2018 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017 cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to Smt. Ragini Pandey was challenged by Smt. Ragini Pandey before the Supreme Court, which was 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. registered as SLP (Cri.) No.4986/2018 and was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 12/6/2018 and 7 days time was granted to Smt. Ragini Pandey to surrender herself before the Investigating Officer. However, it is not out of place to mention here that Smt. Ragini Pandey has not surrendered so far.
Be that whatever it may.
During pendency of the application for cancellation of bail, the police conducted an enquiry into the genuineness of the medical prescription/certificate issued by the applicant and the State filed the said enquiry report, according to which, it was found that the applicant has prepared a false certificate/prescription showing that Smt. Ragini Pandey was admitted in the hospital from 4/6/2017 to 5/6/2017, whereas it was the case of the complainant that Smt. Ragini Pandey was not only present at the time of incident, but was also seen in the police station and her presence was also recorded in CCTV camera installed in the police station. It is not out of place to mention here that the police had given full opportunity of hearing to the applicant to explain the medical certificate issued by him and his statement was also recorded. It is also not out of place to mention here that in the order dated 27/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017 this Court had taken note of the statement of the applicant which was given by him to the police in which he had 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. admitted that he was not on duty either on 3/6/2017 or on 4/6/2017. Although he had tried to give an explanation that as the doctor on Emergency Duty was getting late, therefore, the applicant had performed the Emergency Duty.
Be that whatever it may.
The ultimate report of the police was that the OPD register, other documents of the hospital as well as the medical certificate issued by the applicant were forged and Smt. Ragini Pandey was never admitted or had never taken any treatment in the District Hospital, Dabra, District Gwalior.
So far as the contention of the applicant that it is not his duty to verify as to whether the name of the patient, which is mentioned in the OPD register, is that of the same person, who has come to him for treatment or not is concerned, the said argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is not the case of examining a patient as an outdoor patient only, but it also appears that Smt. Ragini Pandey was also shown to have been admitted in the hospital and she was also examined by the applicant as an indoor patient.
Be that whatever it may.
The crux of the matter is that the police after conducting a detailed enquiry, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the applicant and after recording his statement and after considering the 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. documents of the hospital, came to a conclusion that the medical certificate/prescription issued by the applicant was a forged one.
It is really unfortunate that the applicant whose duty is to save the life of patients has involved himself in issuing forged medical certificate in order to save a person against whom a criminal offence has been registered. This act of issuing forged certificate is a direct interference in the justice dispensation system by playing fraud on the Court. By no stretch of imagination such an illegal act of a doctor can be condoned by the Court.
So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant that this Court after canceling the anticipatory bail of Smt. Ragivni Pandey, should not have considered the submissions made by the Public Prosecutor that strict departmental as well as criminal action would be taken against the applicant is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment relied upon by the applicant passed in the case of M. Murugeson (supra) is distinguishable. In that case, the question for consideration before the High Court was as to whether the accused is entitled for bail or not. Under that circumstance, the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that after deciding the bail application, the jurisdiction of the High Court had come to an end. Whereas in the present case, this Court was not dealing with the bail application of any accused, but was dealing with 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. an application for cancellation of bail granted to one Smt. Ragini Pandey on the ground that it has been obtained by placing reliance on a forged medical certificate issued by the applicant. The solitary ground for seeking cancellation of bail was, filing of forged medical certificate, therefore, for deciding the application for cancellation of bail, this Court was under bounden duty to decide as to whether the medical certificate issued by the applicant was a forged one or not. After coming to a conclusion, which was based on the report submitted by the State that the medical certificate issued by the applicant was a forged certificate, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of this Court had come to an end. Filing of forged document before this Court is an offence.
So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant that this Court should not have considered the undertaking given by the Public Prosecutor in paragraph 36 of the order is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. Paragraph 36 of order dated 27/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017 reads as under:-
"36. The Public Prosecutor, has submitted that in view of the findings given by the police as well as the evidence collected by the Police, a strict departmental action as well as under
Criminal Law, shall be taken against Dr. Virendra Gaud and other co-accused person. This Court hopes and believes that the undertaking given by the Public Prosecutor will be honored by the Department in its letter and spirit."
8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. If a forged document is filed before this Court, then this Court could have directed for prosecution of the applicant as well as Smt. Ragini Pandey by exercising power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in the case of State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Pankaj Choudhary, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 575 has held that for exercising power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., the Court is not always under an obligation to conduct an enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the suspect, but can also exercise its power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. if a prima facie opinion has been formed on the basis of material available on record. In the present case, the opportunity of hearing was already given to the applicant by the police while conducting enquiry into the genuineness of the medical certificate. Further, this Court after considering the enquiry report submitted by the police, had already come to a conclusion that the applicant had issued a forged medical certificate, so that the same can be used in judicial proceedings and in fact the said forged medical certificate was used for obtaining anticipatory bail by Smt. Ragini Pandey. Under these circumstances, this Court could have exercised its power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. without issuing any notice to the applicant. If any fraud is played on the Court, then the Court is not expected to sit idle by closing its eyes. Had it been done by this Court, then this Court is of the considered opinion that it 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. would have been a sheer failure to discharge the constitutional duty. Instead of exercising power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., still this Court considered the submissions made by the Public Prosecutor and expressed its hope and belief that strict departmental action as well as criminal action would be taken against the persons who had issued forged medical certificate.
The applicant has also filed another application for withdrawal of the observations made in paragraph 36 of the order dated 27/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017, in which the complainant has filed a copy of the promotion order dated 4/10/2018 issued by the Deputy Director (Administration), Secretariat Health Service, M.P., Bhopal, by which the applicant was granted promotion to the post of In-charge Specialist. It is not out of place to mention here that much prior to issuance of promotion order, the CMHO, Gwalior by its letter dated 3/7/2018 had already informed the Health Commissioner, Secretariat, Health Service, M.P., Bhopal for conducting suitable departmental enquiry against the applicant for issuing forged medical certificate on the basis of which Smt. Ragini Pandey had succeeded in getting the anticipatory bail. In spite of that, the applicant was granted promotion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the "hope and belief" expressed by this Court in paragraph 36 of the order dated 27/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. No.9375/2017 had not influenced the authorities.
Be that whatever it may.
The crux of the matter is that the allegations against the applicant are that he had issued a forged certificate/prescription in favour of one Smt. Ragini Pandey, who succeeded in getting anticipatory bail from this Court. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.04.03 17:01:44 +05'30'