Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Hazi Mushahid vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 8 February, 2022

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh

     ITEM NO.8                    Court 6 (Video Conferencing)              SECTION II

                             S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
                                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)                     No.8503/2021

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-09-2021
     in CRMBA No.10434/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
     Allahabad)

     HAZI MUSHAHID                                                         Petitioner(s)

     VERSUS

     THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                                     Respondent(s)


     Date : 08-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

     For Petitioner(s)                 Mr.   Pardeep Gupta, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Parinav Gupta, Adv.
                                       Ms.   Mansi Gupta, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Krishna Kumar, Adv.
                                       Ms.   Nandani Gupta, Adv.
                                       Dr.    (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR

     For Respondent(s)                 Mr. Rauf Rahim, AOR
                                       Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv.

                                       Mr. R.K. Raizada, Sr. Adv, Ld. AAG
                                       Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR
                                       Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv.
                                       Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.
                                       Mr. Kartik Yadav, Adv.


                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                  O R D E R

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Leave granted.

RASHI GUPTA Date: 2022.02.08 17:44:45 IST Reason:

We may notice that an adjournment letter has been circulated 1 by respondent No.1. On our query, learned counsel for the State submits that an affidavit has been filed by the Senior Consultant of the District Hospital in pursuance to the queries of this Court which arose on 18.1.2022 on the submission of learned counsel for the complainant. He submits that an adjournment has been sought to find out from the State Government as to why there was no surgeon in the District Hospital, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.

It is not disputed before us that the role of the appellant is same as the other accused who have been granted bail. If, there was some parity the appellant would be entitled to bail.

We have also perused the affidavit filed by the Senior Consultant which acknowledges that no surgeon was posted or attached to the District Hospital, Sambhal from 10.1.2018 to 07.6.2020. On 08.6.2020, Dr. Pradeep Agarwal, surgeon was again attached with the District Hospital, Sambhal. The affidavit states that the Chief Medical Superintendent/ Chief Medical Officer of the District has been time and again writing to the Government for filling the vacant posts in the District Hospital, Sambhal, such a request is stated to have been last made on 21.6.2019. A perusal of the form-2 filed along with affidavit shows that there are many vacant posts in District Hospital, Sambhal. The position is same qua both male and female doctors/attendants. The vacancy position is stated to be 62% and 70% respectively. This is a very disturbing scenario and we do not even know whether this is peculiar to the district in question or whether it is a larger prevalent problem. There are 75 districts in Uttar Pradesh.

We, however, do not want to detain the aspect of bail entitlement of the appellant and thus grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court. We, however, retain the matter on the second aspect for the State to file an appropriate affidavit. In view what has been set out, we are inclined to grant larger time period wherein the position for all 75 District Hospitals should be set forth with a chart showing what is the existing position of posts occupied against total 2 posts. We grant six weeks’ time for the said purpose.

The special leave petition stands disposed of.

List for further proceedings qua the aspect of the vacancy position in the District Hospitals of Uttar Pradesh on 29th March, 2022.

    (RASHMI DHYANI)                          (POONAM VAID)
     COURT MASTER                             COURT MASTER




                                                                 3