[Cites 49, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ravinderpal Singh Jaspal Singh vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Spo., ... on 10 February, 2026
1 aba-28-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 28 OF 2026
Dr. Ravinderpal Singh Jaspal Singh
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. V. Sirpurkar a/w. Shri D. S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Shri D. V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate & Public Prosecutor a/w. U. R. Phasate,
APP for non-applicant/State.
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 10.02.2026
Heard.
2. The applicant, a Doctor by profession seeks
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 654/2025
registered with Police Station Brahmapuri, Dist.
Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections
326, 387, 342, 294, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC), Sections 143(1)(a)(f), 143(2), 143(3) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 44 and 39
of the Maharashtra Money-lending (Regulation) Act,
2014 and Sections 18 and 19 of the Transplantation of
Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (for short, "the
THOT Act").
3. Police machinery was put into motion on
registration of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged
by one Roshan Shivdas Kule alleging that the accused
RR Jaiswal
2 aba-28-26.odt
persons mentioned in the FIR have illegally extracted an
amount of Rs.48,53,000/- from him.
4. The summary of the complaint filed by
Roshan Kule is that he was entangled in a debt trap for
the period from 2021-2024 and harassed for the same by
four persons named in the FIR. By charging excess rate of
interest, they recovered an amount of Rs.48,53,000/-.
For that purpose, he had not only transferred his
agricultural land and Tractor, but also sold his left kidney
at Cambodia. Those four persons along with two other
persons also assaulted him by means of an iron rod.
5. On his complaint, initially the offences under
Sections 387, 342, 294, 506, 120B and 326 of the IPC
apart from Sections 39 and 44 of the Maharashtra
Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 came to be
registered. During the course of investigation, the Police
arrested one Ramkrushna @ Krishna Mallesh Sunchu,
who is the kingpin in removing the kidney of
complainant Roshan Kule. During his interrogation, it
was revealed that there is an ongoing illegal human
organ trafficking racket. Not only the complainant, but
there are various other persons whose organs have been
removed and transplanted into the bodies of other
patients illegally. There are various Hospitals and Doctors
involved in this illegal human organ trafficking racket.
6. During inspection of the mobile phone of Dr.
Ramkrushna Mallesh Sunchu, it was revealed that there
RR Jaiswal
3 aba-28-26.odt
are various communications between the patients, donors
as well as the present applicant, including financial
transactions pertaining to kidney transplant surgery. The
allegation against the present applicant is that he used to
perform surgeries for removing and transplanting human
organs illegally. Therefore, the Police started searching
the applicant. Feeling apprehension of his arrest, the
applicant approached this Court for grant of anticipatory
bail.
7. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that the applicant is a well-known
liver transplant Doctor based in Delhi. He has nothing to
do with the crime and the allegations against him are
that he conducted surgeries for removal of the organs
and transplanted the same into the bodies of other
patient for money. According to him, he has not directly
dealt with any of the victims, so there is nothing on
record to suggest that the applicant exploited the victims
from whose bodies, the organs were removed for the
purpose of recruitment, transport, harbour, transfer by
using any of the modes mentioned in Section 143 of the
BNS. Therefore, the Police is unnecessarily trying to
connect the applicant with this crime.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that at the most, if any irregularity has been committed
by the applicant while performing surgeries, that will be
governed by the provisions of the THOT Act. The
RR Jaiswal
4 aba-28-26.odt
applicant at the most, can be said to have not intimated
or failed to obtain permission from the Competent
Authority under the THOT Act before performing the
surgeries for transplantation. Therefore, he will be liable
only for breach of the provisions of the THOT Act. He
strenuously submitted that the mechanism to deal with
such acts on the part of a Doctor has been provided
under the THOT Act itself. Rather, if any offence is
committed under Sections 18, 19 or 20 of the THOT Act,
a complaint can be entertained only if it is filed by the
appropriate authority under the THOT Act or any officer
authorized on behalf of the Central Government/ State
Government or by a person, after giving notice of 60 days
to the appropriate authority to make such complaint.
However, in the present case, the appropriate authority
under the THOT Act has not filed any complaint before
any of the Courts and therefore, cognizance taken by the
Police for breach of the provisions under the THOT Act is
not permissible.
9. Lastly, Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that even if it is presumed that the
offence under Section 143 of the BNS i.e. so called
'human trafficking' is attracted to the alleged acts of the
offenders including the applicant, but the THOT Act
being a special statue, Section 4 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) authorizing investigation into
cognizable offences may not be applicable, since it
specifically provides that the offence under any other law
RR Jaiswal
5 aba-28-26.odt
shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise
dealt with subject to any enactment for the time being in
force, regulating such offence.
10. The sum and substance of the argument of
the learned counsel for the applicant is that the THOT
Act is a special enactment and cognizance of the offence
under the THOT Act cannot be taken on a Police report
but can only be taken on the complaint filed by the
Competent Authority. In absence of the complaint by the
Competent Authority, registration of the offence itself is
without jurisdiction and therefore, all consequential
actions and acts are also vitiated.
11. In addition to the above, Mr. Sirpurkar
vehemently submitted that the applicant is ready to co-
operate in the investigation and nothing is required to be
seized from him. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the
applicant may not be required. According to him, the
applicant is a renowned Doctor and there is a bleak
chance of his fleeing from justice. Therefore, he prayed
for protection by way of anticipatory bail.
12. Mr. D. V. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate
and Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the
hand, vehemently objected the application on the ground
that an illegal human organ trafficking racket is active
wherein, not only the organs of various persons are
removed and transplanted by conducting illegal
surgeries. According to him, there is sufficient material
RR Jaiswal
6 aba-28-26.odt
available on record in the form of Whatsapp chats
between arrested accused Dr. Ramkrushna Sunchu and
the present applicant, which speaks in many words that
there are various financial transactions between the
applicant and Dr. Ramkrushna Sunchu for conducting
those illegal surgeries. The present applicant was very
well aware that he is performing surgeries for illegal
human organ trafficking racket. Therefore, there is more
than sufficient material to connect the applicant with the
crime. According to him, custodial interrogation of the
applicant is necessary to bust the illegal human organ
trafficking racket.
13. On the legal aspect of attracting the
provisions of the THOT Act vis-a-vis Section 143 of the
BNS, Mr. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate submitted
that if one act is punishable under two different statutes,
then there is no bar to the trial of an offender under two
different enactments. The bar is only to punishment of
the offender twice for the same offence. According to
him, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits
prosecution of an offender under two different Acts, if
the ingredients of the provisions are specific. There is no
specific section in the THOT Act which gives an over-
riding effect to the provisions of the THOT Act over the
BNS/IPC. The purpose and object of the special
enactment was to regulate removal, storage and
transplantation of human organs and tissues and
prevention of commercial dealings in human organs and
RR Jaiswal
7 aba-28-26.odt
tissues. Whereas, Section 143 of the BNS (Section 370 of
the IPC) operates in a totally different field altogether
and the purpose of the THOT Act is to prevent
exploitation of a person by inducement for the purpose of
removal of organs which is covered under Section 143 of
the BNS and the consent of the victim is immaterial.
14. According to him, the ingredients of
unauthorized human transplantation of organs i.e.
human trafficking are not covered by the provisions of
the THOT Act and therefore, irrespective of Section 22
which provides cognizance only on the complaint of the
appropriate authority, the Police can investigate the
offence punishable under Section 143 of the BNS.
According to him, even if one ingredient of the offence
under IPC is missing in the special Act, the IPC Section
will not be excluded and can still be resorted.
15. To appreciate the argument of the learned
counsels for the respective parties, it will be appropriate
to discuss the provisions of the THOT Act, a special Act
which has been enacted for regulation of removal,
storage and transplantation of human organs and tissues
for therapeutic purposes and for the prevention of
commercial dealings in human organs and tissues and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Sections 9, 13, 18, 19, 20 and 22 are relevant for
consideration of the issue involved in this matter.
Therefore, they are reproduced hereunder:-
RR Jaiswal
8 aba-28-26.odt
"9. Restrictions on removal and transplantation of human
organs or tissues or both.--
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), no
human organ or tissue or both removed from the body of a
donor before his death shall be transplanted into a
recipient unless the donor is a near relative of the recipient.
(1A) Where the donor or the recipient being near relative is
a foreign national, prior approval of the Authorisation
Committee shall be required before removing or
transplanting human organ or tissue or both:
Provided that the Authorisation Committee shall not
approve such removal or transplantation if the recipient is a
foreign national and the donor is an Indian national unless
they are near relatives.
(1B) No human organs or tissues or both shall be removed
from the body of a minor before his death for the purpose
of transplantation except in the manner as may be
prescribed.
(1C) No human organs or tissues or both shall be removed
from the body of a mentally challenge person before his
death for the purpose of transplantation.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section,--
(i) the expression "mentally challenged person" includes a
person with mental illness or mental retardation, as the
case may be;
(ii) the expression "mental illness" includes dementia,
schizophrenia and such other mental condition that makes
a person intellectually disables;
(iii) the expression "mental retardation" shall have the
same meaning as assigned to it in clause (r) of section 2 of
the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of
1996).
(2) Where any donor authorises the removal of any of his
human organs or tissues or both after his death under sub-
section (2) of section 3 or any person competent or
empowered to give authority for the removal of any human
organ or tissue or both from the body of any deceased
person authorises such removal, the human organ or tissue
or both may be removed and transplanted into the body of
any recipient who may be in need of such 1[human organ
or tissue or both.
RR Jaiswal
9 aba-28-26.odt
(3) If any donor authorises the removal of any of his
human organs or tissues or both] before his death under
sub-section (1) of section 3 for transplantation into the
body of such recipient, not being a near relative, as is
specified by the donor by reason of affection or attachment
towards the recipient or for any other special reasons, such
human organ or tissue or both] shall not be removed and
transplanted without the prior approval of the
Authorisation Committee.
(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(3), where--
(a) any donor has agreed to make a donation of his human
organ or tissue or both before his death to a recipient, who
is his near relative, but such donor is not compatible
biologically as a donor for the recipient; and
(b) the second donor has agreed to make a donation of his
human organ or tissue or both before his death to such
recipient, who is his near relative, but such donor is not
compatible biologically as a donor for such recipient; then
(c) the first donor who is compatible biologically as a donor
for the second recipient and the second donor is compatible
biologically as a donor of a human organ or tissue or both
for the first recipient and both donors and both recipients
in the aforesaid group of donor and recipient have entered
into a single agreement to donate and receive such human
organ or tissue or both according to such biological
compatibility in the group, the removal and transplantation
of the human organ or tissue or both, as per the agreement
referred to above, shall not be done without prior approval
of the Authorisation Committee.
(4) (a) The composition of the Authorisation Committee
shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central
Government from time to time.
(b) The State Government and the Union territories shall
constitute, by notification, one or more Authorisation
Committee consisting of such members as may be
nominated by the State Government and the Union
territories on such terms and conditions as may be specified
in the notification for the purposes of this section.
(5) On an application jointly made, in such form and in
such manner as may be prescribed, by the donor and the
recipient, the Authorisation Committee shall, after holding
an inquiry and after satisfying itself that the applicants
have complied with all the requirements of this Act and tile
RR Jaiswal
10 aba-28-26.odt
rules made thereunder, grant to the applicants approval for
the removal and transplantation of the human organ.
(6) If, after the inquiry and after giving an opportunity to
the applicants of being heard, the Authorisation Committee
is satisfied that the applicants have not complied with the
requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder, it
shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject the
application for approval.
****
13. Appropriate Authority.--(1) The Central Government
shall appoint, by notification, one or more officers as
Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union territories for
the purposes of this Act.
(2) The State Government shall appoint, by notification,
one or more officers as Appropriate Authorities for the
purposes of this Act.
(3) The Appropriate Authority shall perform the following
functions, namely:--
(i) to grant registration under sub-section (1) of section 15
or renew registration under sub-section (3) of that section;
(ii) to suspend or cancel registration under sub-section (2)
of section 16;
(iii) to enforce such standards, as may be prescribed,--
(A) for hospitals engaged in the removal, storage or
transplantation of any human organ:
(B) for Tissue Banks engaged in recovery, screening,
testing, processing, storage and distribution of tissues;
(iv) to investigate any complaint of breach of any of the
provisions of this Act or any of the rules made thereunder
and take appropriate action;
(iva) to inspect Tissue Banks periodically;
(v) to inspect hospitals periodically for examination of the
quality of transplantation and the follow-up medical care to
persons who have undergone transplantation and persons
from whom organs are removed; and
RR Jaiswal
11 aba-28-26.odt
(vi) to undertake such other measures as may be
prescribed.
****
18. Punishment for removal of human organ without
authority.--
(1) Any person who renders his services to or at any
hospital and who, for purposes of transplantation,
conducts, associates with, or helps in any manner in, the
removal of any human organ without authority, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to
twenty lakh rupees.
(2) Where any person convicted under sub-section (1) is a
registered medical practitioner, his name shall be reported
by the Appropriate Authority to the respective State
Medical Council for taking necessary action including the
removal of his name from the register of the Council for a
period of three years for the first offence and permanently
for the subsequent offence.
(3) Any person who renders his services to or at any
hospital and who conducts, or associates with or helps in
any manner in the removal of human tissue without
authority, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees.
****
19. Punishment for commercial dealings in human organs.
--Whoever--
(a) makes or receives any payment for the supply of, or for
an offer to supply, any human organ;
(b) seeks to find a person willing to supply for payment any
human organ;
(c) offers to supply any human organ for payment; or
(d) initiates or negotiates any arrangement involving the
making of any payment for the supply
of, or for an offer to supply, any human organ;
(e) takes part in the management or control of a body of
persons, whether a society, firm or company, whose
RR Jaiswal
12 aba-28-26.odt
activities consist of or include the initiation or negotiation
of any arrangement referred to in clause (d); or
(f) publishes or distributes or causes to be published or
distributed any advertisement,--
(a) inviting persons to supply for payment of any human
organ;
(b) offering to supply any human organ for payment; or
(c) indicating that the advertiser is willing to initiate or
negotiate any arrangement referred to in clause (d);
(g) abets in the preparation or submission of false
documents including giving false affidavits to establish that
the donor is making the donation of the human organs, as a
near relative or by reason of affection or attachment
towards the recipient, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five
years but which may extend to ten years and shall be liable
to fine which shall not be less than twenty lakh rupees but
may extend to one crore rupees.
20. Punishment for contravention of any other provision of
this Act.--Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or
any rule made, or any condition of the registration granted,
thereunder for which no punishment is separately provided
in this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to five years or with fine which
may extend to twenty lakh rupees.
****
22. Cognizance of offences.--(1) No court shall take
cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by--
(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer
authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the
State Government or, as the case may be, the Appropriate
Authority; or;
(b) a person who has given notice of not less than sixty
days, in such manner as may be prescribed, to the
Appropriate Authority concerned, of the alleged offence
and of his intention to make a complaint to the court.
RR Jaiswal
13 aba-28-26.odt
(2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate
or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any
offence punishable under this Act.
(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of
sub-section (1), the court may, on demand by such person,
direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of
the relevant records in its possession to such person."
16. Section 13 of the THOT Act deals with
appointment of the 'Appropriate Authority' and Section
13B thereof provides powers of the 'Appropriate
Authority' i.e. the Appropriate Authority shall, for the
purpose of this Act, have all the powers of a Civil Court
trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
17. Section 13(iv) of the THOT Act provides for
the 'Appropriate Authority' to investigate any complaint
of breach of any of the provisions of the Act or any of the
rules made thereunder and take appropriate action. The
said provisions of the said Act, if read with the provisions
of Section 4(2) of the CrPC and other relevant provisions
quoted above i.e. the definition of complaint, information
etc., the Court finds that it is the Appropriate Authority
appointed under the THOT Act who can to investigate
into the provisions of the Act. Breach of the provisions of
the Act have been made punishable under Sections 19
and 19A thereof.
18. As per the provisions of Section 22 of the
THOT Act, the cognizance of an offence can only be on a
complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or any
officer authorised in this behalf. This takes me to Section
RR Jaiswal
14 aba-28-26.odt
4 of the CrPC (Section 4 of the the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which is reproduced
hereunder:-
"4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other
laws.--(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and
otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter
contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated,
inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to
the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the
time being in force regulating the manner of place of
investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing
with such offences."
19. Thus, ordinarily the offence shall be
investigated, inquired into and tried as per the provisions
of the Code. However, if the special enactment provides
the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into,
trying or otherwise dealing with such offence, then the
offence will be investigated, inquired into and tried as
per the special statute.
20. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to
refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Jeewan Kumar Raut & Another VS. Central Bureau of
Investigating [(2009) 7 SCC 526] relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court after considering Section 4 of the CrPC and Section
22 of the THOT in identical facts, has observed in para
nos. 19 to 27 as under:-
RR Jaiswal
15 aba-28-26.odt
19. TOHO is a special Act. It deals with the subjects
mentioned therein, viz. Offences relating to removal of
human organs, etc. Having regard to the importance of the
subject only, enactment of the said regulatory statute was
imperative.
20. TOHO provides for appointment of an appropriate
authority to deal with the matters specified in sub-section
(3) of Section 13 thereof. By reason of the aforementioned
provision, an appropriate authority has specifically been
authorised inter alia to investigate any complaint of the
breach of any of the provisions of TOHO or any of the rules
made thereunder and take appropriate action. The
appropriate authority, subject to exceptions provided for in
TOHO, thus, is only authorised to investigate cases of
breach of any of the provisions thereof, whether penal or
otherwise.
21. Ordinarily, any person can set the criminal law in
motion. Parliament and the State Legislatures, however,
keeping in view the sensitivity and/or importance of the
subject, have carved out specific areas where violations of
any of the provisions of a special statute like TOHO can be
dealt with only by the authorities specified therein. The FIR
lodged before the officer in charge of Gurgaon Police
Station was by way of information. It disclosed not only
commission of an offence under TOHO but also under
various provisions of the Penal Code. The officer in charge
of the police station, however, was not authorised by the
appropriate Government to deal with the matter in relation
to TOHO; but, the respondent was. In that view of the
matter, the investigation of the said complaint was handed
over to it.
22. TOHO being a special statute, Section 4 of the Code,
which ordinarily would be applicable for investigation into
a cognizable offence or the other provisions, may not be
applicable. Section 4 provides for investigation, inquiry,
trial, etc. according to the provisions of the Code. Sub-
section (2) of Section 4, however, specifically provides that
offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired
into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same
provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being
in force regulating the manner or place of investigating,
inquiring into, tried or otherwise dealing with such
offences.
23. TOHO being a special Act and the matter relating to
dealing with offences thereunder having been regulated by
reason of the provisions thereof, there cannot be any
RR Jaiswal
16 aba-28-26.odt
manner of doubt whatsoever that the same shall prevail
over the provisions of the Code. The investigation in terms
of Section 13(3) (iv) of TOHO, thus, must be conducted by
an authorised officer. Nobody else could do it. For the
aforementioned reasons, the officer in charge of Gurgaon
Police Station had no other option but to hand over the
investigation to the appropriate authority.
24. The respondent has been constituted under the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. In terms of the
provisions of the said Act, the authorities specified therein
could make investigation in connection with a complaint.
The mode and manner in which the investigation could be
carried out have been laid down in the Act and/or the
Manual framed thereunder. It is for the aforementioned
reason, upon receipt of the complaint from the officer in
charge of Gurgaon Police Station, it presumably having
made a preliminary inquiry, lodged the FIR. Only because it
lodged the FIR and proceeded in terms of the said Act and
the Manual, the same by itself would not mean that all the
provisions of Chapter XII of TOHO vis-à-vis Chapter XV
thereof could not be invoked.
25. Section 22 of TOHO prohibits taking of cognizance
except on a complaint made by an appropriate authority or
the person who had made a complaint earlier to it as laid
down therein. The respondent, although, has all the powers
of an investigating agency, it expressly has been statutorily
prohibited from filing a police report. It could file a
complaint petition only as an appropriate authority so as to
comply with the requirements contained in Section 22 of
TOHO. If by reason of the provisions of TOHO, filing of a
police report by necessary implication is necessarily
forbidden, the question of its submitting a report in terms
of sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code did not and
could not arise. In other words, if no police report could be
filed, sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code was not
attracted.
26. It is a well-settled principle of law that if a special
statute lays down procedures, the ones laid down under the
general statutes shall not be followed. In a situation of this
nature, the respondent could carry out investigations in
exercise of its authorisation under Section 13(3)(iv) of
TOHO. While doing so, it could exercise such powers which
are otherwise vested in it. But, as it could not file a police
report but a complaint petition only; sub-section (2) of
Section 167 of the Code may not be applicable.
RR Jaiswal
17 aba-28-26.odt
27. The provisions of the Code, thus, for all intent and
purport, would apply only to an extent till conflict arises
between the provisions of the Code and TOHO and as soon
as the area of conflict reaches, TOHO shall prevail over the
Code. Ordinarily, thus, although in terms of the Code, the
respondent upon completion of investigation and upon
obtaining remand of the accused from time to time, was
required to file a police report, it was precluded from doing
so by reason of the provisions contained in Section 22 of
TOHO.
21. The decision in the case of State of
Maharashtra and another Vs. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed
Subhan and others [(2019) 18 SCC 145] has been placed
in service by the learned Public Prosecutor, wherein the
Supreme Court in para no. 8 has held as under:-
"8. In Hat Singh case [(2003) 2 SCC 152] this Court
discussed the doctrine of double jeopardy and Section 26 of
the General Clauses Act to observe that prosecution under
two different Acts is permissible if the ingredients of the
provisions are satisfied on the same facts. While
considering a dispute about the prosecution of the
Respondent therein for offences under the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and
Indian Penal Code, this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v.
Sanjay [(2014) 9 SCC 772] held that there is no bar in
prosecuting persons under the Penal Code where the
offences committed by persons are penal and cognizable
offences. A perusal of the provisions of the FSS Act would
make it clear that there is no bar for prosecution under the
IPC merely because the provisions in the FSS Act prescribe
penalties. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the High
Court on the first point."
22. However, in the decision in case of Ramnath
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 3 SCC 502], the
Supreme Court in para no. 30 has held as under:-
"30. The decision of this Court in the case of Swami
Achyutanand Tirth Vs. Union of India [(2014) 13 SCC 314]
does not deal with this contingency at all. In the case of the
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan
[(2019) 18 SCC 145], the question of the effect of Section
97 FSSA did not arise for consideration of this Court. The
RR Jaiswal
18 aba-28-26.odt
Court dealt with simultaneous prosecutions and concluded
that there could be simultaneous prosecutions, but
conviction and sentence can be only in one. This
proposition is based on what is incorporated in Section 26
of the GC Act. We have no manner of doubt that by virtue
of Section 89 FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisions
of Sections 272 and 273 IPC. Therefore, there will not be
any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the
statutes."
Therefore, the decision in the case of Sayyed
Hassan Sayyed Subhan (supra) will not help the learned
Public Prosecutor.
23. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak Vs. State of
Maharashtra [2024 (4) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 708] in para nos. 36
and 37 has held as under:-
"36. Ex facie, neither section 43 nor section 72 makes
punishable an offence as defined therein when it is
committed by two or more persons by sharing a common
intention, neither is there any other provision in the IT Act
which would demonstrate the legislature having
comprehended a situation where these offences are
committed by sharing a common intention as defined
under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Independently,
even this aspect, in the context of Legal Metrology Act,
2009 was considered in Aman Mittal, in 22 Cri. Appln.
2562-2019-FB-Ref concluding paragraph (supra). With
respect, we follow the same line of reasoning. Hence, we
answer this question also in the negative.
37. The common thread deducible from various judgments
of the Supreme Court covering similar issues, where an act
is an offence under a special statute having an overriding
effect over the offence covered by the general law like
Indian Penal Code, is that in order to exclude the general
law or the offence therein, ingredients of the offence
defined under the special statute and the Indian Penal Code
will have to be the same. If even one ingredient of an
offence under the Indian Penal Code is missing in the act
which has been made punishable under the special statute,
the Indian Penal Code section will not be excluded and still
can be resorted to albeit, the provisions of section 71 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 26 of the General Clauses
RR Jaiswal
19 aba-28-26.odt
Act will have to be borne in mind by the Courts while
imposing the sentences."
24. I have gone through the case-diary. The
allegation against the present applicant which appears
from the Whatsapp chats between the applicant and co-
accused- Ramkrushna is that the applicant used to
conduct surgeries for removal of organs and transplant
the same without approval of the Competent Authority
and used to charge a hefty amount for each surgery. The
allegation against the other accused may be under
different Sections of the IPC but, the alleged acts of the
applicant are covered under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of
the THOT Act. Therefore, the case of Awadhesh Kumar
Parasnath Pathak (supra) will not help the prosecution.
25. Rather, in identical facts, the Supreme Court
in the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut (supra) held that the
provisions of the THOT Act will be applicable. The
decision mentioned above has been followed by the
Orissa High Court as well as the Rajasthan High Court in
the cases of Mrs. N. Ratnakumari Vs. State of Odisha and
others [2014 SCC Online Ori 256] and Nurul Ishlam S/o.
Abdul Jabbar and another Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 5775/2024,
decided on 26.09.2024) respectively relied by the
applicant.
26. Rather, recently the Principal Bench of this
Court in case of The State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh
RR Jaiswal
20 aba-28-26.odt
Bhai Amruth Bhai Prajapathi (Criminal Application
(APPLN) No. 187/2018, decided on 12.07.2022) has
relied on Section 22 of the THOT Act while confirming
the order of bail granted by the Sessions Court.
27. It is brought to my notice that the
Investigating Officer (IO) has sought permission for
prosecuting the applicant under the provisions of
Transplantation of Human Organ and Tissues Act, 1994 .
Whether the appropriate authority itself will investigate
the matter or the State/Central Government will
authorize any officer on their behalf, is in their domain.
28. In view of the matter, it will be appropriate to
grant ad-interim protection to the applicant by imposing
certain stringent conditions till such decision is taken by
the Authority/Government.
29. Needless to mention that, the other grounds
for grant/rejection of the anticipatory bail have not been
considered. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order:-
i) Pending the application, in the event of arrest
applicant- Dr. Ravinderpal Singh Jaspal Singh be released
on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one
solvent surety in the like amount in connection with
Crime No. 654/2025 registered with Police Station
Brahmapuri, Dist. Chandrapur for the offences punishable
under Sections 326, 387, 342, 294, 506, 120B of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 143(1)(a)(f), 143(2),
RR Jaiswal
21 aba-28-26.odt
143(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 39
and 44 of the Maharashtra Money-lending (Regulation)
Act, 2014 and Sections 18 and 19 of the Transplantation
of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.
ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned
Police Station from 02:00 pm to 05:00 pm on 11.02.2026
and from 10:00 am to 05:00 pm from 12.02.2026 to
16.02.2026.
iii) The applicant shall not threaten the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with prosecution
evidence and shall co-operate in the investigation.
iv) The applicant shall not leave India without
the prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his
Passport with the IO.
v) The IO present in the Court shall take note of
this order.
30. List the matter on 18.02.2026.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal
RRToJaiswal
Designation: PA Honourable Judge
Date: 11/02/2026 19:19:52
