Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Vijay Saw @ Vijay Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 25 August, 2023
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4578 of 2023
Dr. Vijay Saw @ Vijay Saw ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
...
For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP ...
04/25.08.2023: Heard both the counsels.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for the offence registered under section 304 IPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had given injection for cough & cold and fever to the daughter of the informant and assured that she will be recovered soon but within two minutes of giving injection, froth started coming out from her month and her body became cool and thereafter she was taken to a private hospital at Lesliganj and again taken to Sadar Hospital where doctor disclosed that she is died. The learned counsel has further taken this Court to the statement of the witness, namely, Pyari Saw in para-6 of the case diary and has pointed out that he is the person who was present at the place of occurrence. From his statement, it is clear that the petitioner had not given injection to the deceased. Thereafter, seeing the illness of the girl, he had gone alone for the treatment of the girl. The learned counsel has further pointed out to the statement of the mother in para-10 of the case diary and has submitted that though the mother of the deceased has stated about giving of injection by the petitioner but the mother was not present at the spot. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner does the work of artificial insemination of the cattle and for this reason, the informant had brought his daughter before him for treatment but the petitioner refused to provide any treatment. From the FIR it does not appear that how the daughter of the informant died and in the impugned order it is also not mentioned that what is the cause of her death. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner may be considered.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner had given her wrong injection due to which she died. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner does not have any medical qualification and that the petitioner was treating the local residents for the last 15-20 years. The witness has stated before the IO that the petitioner had also treated the daughter of the informant, who died.
Having gone through the case records and after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Lesliganj PS Case No.124 of 2022, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
S.B. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)