Dr. Sandeep Vohra vs The State And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 764 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No. 112/2002, under Sections 329/498A/120-B/34 IPC, P.S. Parshad Nagar, Delhi. FIR number and sections were not initially mentioned in the petition. On oral prayer made by leaned counsel for petitioner, petitioner was permitted to add FIR number and sections etc. on the petition with signatures.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an M.B.B.S. from University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and M.D. in Psychiatry from Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi. He is a senior Consultant Psychiatrist Indraprastha, Apollo Hospitals and a Consultant Psychiatrist on the Panel of Fresh and German Embassies. He is also running a Neuropsychiatry Centre at Patel Nagar, which has now been registered in pursuance of the advertisement by the State Government in the Times of India newspaper dated 27.1.2002; that the patient had paranoid problem; that petitioner admitted the patient on the emergency request and written consent of her husband on 15th April, 2002, which was found necessary and in the interest of the patient; that the medical course taken by the petitioner as a qualified doctor in psychiatry does not involve commission of any offence. The patient was provided treatment, on the basis of the description, provided by her husband. It revealed that patient was "paranoid" and was refusing to be taken to the doctor or treated or to recognise her illness. It is submitted that petitioner was harassed by the police of P.S. Prasad Nagar at the behest of brother of the patient, who is an IAS officer. Patient was discharged from Nursing Home on 17.4.2002 at the request of her brother. The signature of her brother (Tulsi Gaur) were taken, wherein he specifically recorded that "I have nothing against the Doctor". It is further submitted that petitioner has fully participated in the investigation; nothing incriminating is recovered from him, therefore, he is entitled to pre-arrest bail.

3. Learned counsel for State, on the other hand, strongly opposed the application and argued that petitioner was not a "Medical Officer" or "Medical Officer in charge" as defined in Section 2(i) & (j) of the Mental Health Act (for short, "the Act"). The patient was admitted in violation of the provision of Section 19(2) the Act dealing with the admission of the mentally ill persons, as necessary certificates from other doctors were not obtained. She argued that petitioner in connivance with the husband of patient with an intent to get her declared insane administered stupefying drugs with an intent to cause hurt etc. to make her leave the home where she was living. She was abducted from her house after administering sedative injection. She was wrongfully kept in the nursing home, to facilitate the commission of offence. She further submitted that earlier wife of the patient's husband had also committed suicide. Some of the co-accused (other employees of the Nursing Home), who are yet to be interrogated in the case, are absconding, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

4. I have considered the rival contentions. As per petitioner's own case, the patient was not under his treatment earlier. At the request of patient's husband, petitioner went to the home where the patient was residing. Merely looking at the contention of the patient, sedative was administered and she was removed to the clinic for observations and further treatment. Admittedly, the petitioner did not examine the patient or carry out any investigation. Certification from any other independent Doctor was not sought. If she was violent, the police help could have been taken. If the allegations are true, the petitioner ought to have acted with patience. Admittedly, the petitioner's Nursing Home was not registered under the Act and the procedure as envisaged under Section 19 of the Act for admitting mentally sick patient was not strictly followed. However, this by itself is not enough to deny the benefit of the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. These are only technical violations. The fact remains that the petitioner is a qualified Doctor doing private practice. He is attached to some well known hospitals. Assuming that there was some technical violation of the Act in this case, the police has so far not been able to collect any expert evidence to show that the patient was not suffering from Paranoid ailment or that she was deliberately given wrong treatment or that the fees charged by the petitioner was so abnormal which reflect his guilty mind or any other circumstances similar in nature. The investigating agency could easily get the patient and the Treatment Slip examined at some known Government or private psychiatric centre and obtained their opinion to reach the truth. Further there is no allegation of any lack of co-operation by the complainant. The petitioner has deep root in the society. There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence while on bail, therefore, no case for custodial interrogation is made out.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. Petitioner, in the event of his arrest, is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO, subject to condition that petitioner shall join investigation, as and when required. Looking into the gravity of offence and the nature of allegations, let the investigations be carried out by some Senior Officer not below the rank of Inspector of the Crime Branch.

Petition stands disposed of. Any observation made herein would not affect the merits of the case during the trial. dusty to both the parties.