Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 September, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4973 of 2022
Appellant :- Rajendra Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Rai,Ankita Rai,Priyavrat Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Brijesh Kumar
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Ankita Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.
Mr. Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party no.2 is not present whereas his name is shown in cause list.
This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 06.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Bail Application No. 2651 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 2022, under Section 304 IPC, under Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5Ka SC/ST Act and Section 15(2)(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, and enlarge the appellant on bail during the pendency of trial.
In short compass, the facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that informant Jitendra Kumar lodged the first information report on 01.04.2022 with regard to an incident which took place on 31.03.2022 for the alleged offence under Section 304 IPC against seven named accused persons, namely, Rajendra, Kailash, Sukhdev, Harish, Deepak, Gunjan and Hariom making allegation inter alia that on 31.03.2022 at about 4 o'clock, his sister Rakhi was not feeling well, therefore, his mother took her to a clinic situated near his house, which is being run by Dr. Rajendra (appellant), co-accused Kailash, Sukhdev, Harish, Deepak, Gunjan and Hariom where they have administered injection to his sister whereby she died.
It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the first information report, it has not been specified that as to who has administered the injection to the deceased. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased was taken to a lonely place inside the hospital, therefore, no one had seen her at the time of administering injection. The appellant and other co-accused have been falsely implicated in the present case whereas deceased died her natural death. It is also pointed out that allegation levelled in the first information report is not corroborated from the post mortem report of the deceased. No mark of external injury was seen on the body of the deceased.
The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is languishing in jail since 05.04.2022. Lastly, it is submitted that due to heavy docket, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial of the appellant in near future. There is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by contending that innocence of the appellant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, but did not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that main allegation of the informant is that the appellant had administered the injection inside a room whereby the deceased had died. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the doctors often faced with an emergency ordinarily tried his best to redeem the patient out of his sufferings, therefore, medical professional should be placed at pedestal different from ordinary mortals because they do not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act.
Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani and others Vs. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 753 has held that every death in an institutionalized environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care. Unless the complainant is able to establish before the Court any specific course of conduct suggesting a lack of due medical attention and care, it would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical judgment of the doctor on the line of medical treatment.
In this case, no sign was found on the body of the deceased that any injection was administered to her, therefore, possibility of implication of the appellant on the basis of suspicion cannot be ruled out. As on date there is no material on record to presume that there is danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail to the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasons as mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The impugned order rejecting bail of the appellant is liable to be set-aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant - Rajendra Singh involved in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.
In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
Order Date :- 26.9.2022
Shubham
