Dr Veerendra Singh Gaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1193 MP

    1      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021
             Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated:1/04/2021

        Shri V.K. Saxena, Senior Advocate with Shri Yash Saxena,

Advocate for applicant through video conferencing.

        Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 4/2/2021 in connection with

Crime No.101/2018 registered at Police Station Dabra, District

Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 120-B of

IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according

to the prosecution case, the applicant was working as a Doctor and

was posted in Government Hospital, Dabra, District Gwalior.

According to the prosecution case, the applicant had prepared a false

medical report of one Ragini Pandey, which was used for obtaining

anticipatory bail from this Court. It is submitted that the outdoor

patient slip is prepared by the employees, and the names of the

patients are also filled in by the employees. The doctors are never

required to identify the patients and they simply examine the patients

and write their prescriptions on the OPD slip. It is submitted that in

the present case, OPD slip was prepared by one Jaswant, who has 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

already been granted bail by the trial court by order dated 21/1/2021.

It is further submitted that anticipatory bail was granted to Ragini

Pandey by order dated 10/7/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.7358/2017.

Thereafter, the complainant-Mukesh Parashar filed an application for

cancellation of bail, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017,

on the ground that the anticipatory bail has been obtained by relying

upon a forged medical certificate. This Court by order dated

27/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017 came to a conclusion that

Smt. Ragini Pandey had obtained anticipatory bail order from this

Court by filing a forged medical certificate and accordingly,

cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Ragini Pandey. It is further

submitted that on the basis of the statement made by the Public

Prosecutor, this Court also held that it is hoped and believed that the

undertaking given by the Public Prosecutor that strict departmental

action as well as under Criminal Law would be taken, will be

honoured by the department in its letters and spirit. It is submitted

that in view of the observations made by this Court, the police

registered an FIR and the applicant has been arrested. It is further

submitted that while deciding the application for cancellation of

anticipatory bail granted to Smt. Ragini Pandey, it was not necessary

for this Court to consider the undertaking given by the Public

Prosecutor and should not have passed any observation. To buttress 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

his contentions, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the

judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State

Represented by Inspector of Police Vs. M. Murugeson and

another reported in 2020 (2) MPLC 15 (S.C.) in which it has been

held that while deciding the bail application under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. the jurisdiction of the High Court comes to an end after the

application is decided and should not have passed any further

direction.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State. It is submitted that the practice of issuing false

medical certificate so that the accused can take advantage in the

criminal trial is increasing day by day, which is required to be dealt

with firmly. It is not the case of issuance of a false certificate, but it

also amounts to playing fraud on the Court, because the false

certificate was issued with a solitary intention that the same may be

utilized by the suspect/accused either for obtaining the anticipatory

bail or taking advantage in Criminal Trial, by pleading plea of alibi.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is not out of place to mention here that the order dated

27/3/2018 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017 cancelling

the anticipatory bail granted to Smt. Ragini Pandey was challenged

by Smt. Ragini Pandey before the Supreme Court, which was 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

registered as SLP (Cri.) No.4986/2018 and was dismissed by the

Supreme Court by order dated 12/6/2018 and 7 days time was

granted to Smt. Ragini Pandey to surrender herself before the

Investigating Officer. However, it is not out of place to mention here

that Smt. Ragini Pandey has not surrendered so far.

Be that whatever it may.

During pendency of the application for cancellation of bail, the

police conducted an enquiry into the genuineness of the medical

prescription/certificate issued by the applicant and the State filed the

said enquiry report, according to which, it was found that the

applicant has prepared a false certificate/prescription showing that

Smt. Ragini Pandey was admitted in the hospital from 4/6/2017 to

5/6/2017, whereas it was the case of the complainant that Smt. Ragini

Pandey was not only present at the time of incident, but was also seen

in the police station and her presence was also recorded in CCTV

camera installed in the police station. It is not out of place to mention

here that the police had given full opportunity of hearing to the

applicant to explain the medical certificate issued by him and his

statement was also recorded. It is also not out of place to mention

here that in the order dated 27/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.9375/2017 this Court had taken note of the statement of the

applicant which was given by him to the police in which he had 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

admitted that he was not on duty either on 3/6/2017 or on 4/6/2017.

Although he had tried to give an explanation that as the doctor on

Emergency Duty was getting late, therefore, the applicant had

performed the Emergency Duty.

Be that whatever it may.

The ultimate report of the police was that the OPD register,

other documents of the hospital as well as the medical certificate

issued by the applicant were forged and Smt. Ragini Pandey was

never admitted or had never taken any treatment in the District

Hospital, Dabra, District Gwalior.

So far as the contention of the applicant that it is not his duty to

verify as to whether the name of the patient, which is mentioned in

the OPD register, is that of the same person, who has come to him for

treatment or not is concerned, the said argument cannot be accepted

for the simple reason that it is not the case of examining a patient as

an outdoor patient only, but it also appears that Smt. Ragini Pandey

was also shown to have been admitted in the hospital and she was

also examined by the applicant as an indoor patient.

Be that whatever it may.

The crux of the matter is that the police after conducting a

detailed enquiry, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the

applicant and after recording his statement and after considering the 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

documents of the hospital, came to a conclusion that the medical

certificate/prescription issued by the applicant was a forged one.

It is really unfortunate that the applicant whose duty is to save

the life of patients has involved himself in issuing forged medical

certificate in order to save a person against whom a criminal offence

has been registered. This act of issuing forged certificate is a direct

interference in the justice dispensation system by playing fraud on

the Court. By no stretch of imagination such an illegal act of a doctor

can be condoned by the Court.

So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant that

this Court after canceling the anticipatory bail of Smt. Ragivni

Pandey, should not have considered the submissions made by the

Public Prosecutor that strict departmental as well as criminal action

would be taken against the applicant is concerned, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the judgment relied upon by the applicant

passed in the case of M. Murugeson (supra) is distinguishable. In

that case, the question for consideration before the High Court was as

to whether the accused is entitled for bail or not. Under that

circumstance, the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that after

deciding the bail application, the jurisdiction of the High Court had

come to an end. Whereas in the present case, this Court was not

dealing with the bail application of any accused, but was dealing with 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

an application for cancellation of bail granted to one Smt. Ragini

Pandey on the ground that it has been obtained by placing reliance on

a forged medical certificate issued by the applicant. The solitary

ground for seeking cancellation of bail was, filing of forged medical

certificate, therefore, for deciding the application for cancellation of

bail, this Court was under bounden duty to decide as to whether the

medical certificate issued by the applicant was a forged one or not.

After coming to a conclusion, which was based on the report

submitted by the State that the medical certificate issued by the

applicant was a forged certificate, it cannot be said that the

jurisdiction of this Court had come to an end. Filing of forged

document before this Court is an offence.

So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant that

this Court should not have considered the undertaking given by the

Public Prosecutor in paragraph 36 of the order is concerned, the same

cannot be accepted. Paragraph 36 of order dated 27/3/2018 passed in

M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017 reads as under:-

"36. The Public Prosecutor, has submitted that in view of the findings given by the police as well as the evidence collected by the Police, a strict departmental action as well as under Criminal Law, shall be taken against Dr. Virendra Gaud and other co-accused person. This Court hopes and believes that the undertaking given by the Public Prosecutor will be honored by the Department in its letter and spirit."

    8     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021
           Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

If a forged document is filed before this Court, then this Court

could have directed for prosecution of the applicant as well as Smt.

Ragini Pandey by exercising power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The

Supreme Court in the case of State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs.

Pankaj Choudhary, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 575 has held that

for exercising power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., the Court is not

always under an obligation to conduct an enquiry after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the suspect, but can also exercise its power

under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. if a prima facie opinion has been

formed on the basis of material available on record. In the present

case, the opportunity of hearing was already given to the applicant by

the police while conducting enquiry into the genuineness of the

medical certificate. Further, this Court after considering the enquiry

report submitted by the police, had already come to a conclusion that

the applicant had issued a forged medical certificate, so that the same

can be used in judicial proceedings and in fact the said forged

medical certificate was used for obtaining anticipatory bail by Smt.

Ragini Pandey. Under these circumstances, this Court could have

exercised its power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. without issuing any

notice to the applicant. If any fraud is played on the Court, then the

Court is not expected to sit idle by closing its eyes. Had it been done

by this Court, then this Court is of the considered opinion that it 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021 Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

would have been a sheer failure to discharge the constitutional duty.

Instead of exercising power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., still this

Court considered the submissions made by the Public Prosecutor and

expressed its hope and belief that strict departmental action as well as

criminal action would be taken against the persons who had issued

forged medical certificate.

The applicant has also filed another application for withdrawal

of the observations made in paragraph 36 of the order dated

27/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9375/2017, in which the

complainant has filed a copy of the promotion order dated 4/10/2018

issued by the Deputy Director (Administration), Secretariat Health

Service, M.P., Bhopal, by which the applicant was granted promotion

to the post of In-charge Specialist. It is not out of place to mention

here that much prior to issuance of promotion order, the CMHO,

Gwalior by its letter dated 3/7/2018 had already informed the Health

Commissioner, Secretariat, Health Service, M.P., Bhopal for

conducting suitable departmental enquiry against the applicant for

issuing forged medical certificate on the basis of which Smt. Ragini

Pandey had succeeded in getting the anticipatory bail. In spite of that,

the applicant was granted promotion. Therefore, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the "hope and belief" expressed by this Court

in paragraph 36 of the order dated 27/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.

         10       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           M.Cr.C. No.11166/2021
                  Dr. Virendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

No.9375/2017 had not influenced the authorities.

Be that whatever it may.

The crux of the matter is that the allegations against the

applicant are that he had issued a forged certificate/prescription in

favour of one Smt. Ragini Pandey, who succeeded in getting

anticipatory bail from this Court. Under these circumstances, this

Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of

bail.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.04.03 17:01:44 +05'30'