Dr Mahendra Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6333 MP

                                                                                 1            MCRC-46205-2021


                                                    The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh


                                                                      MCRC-46205-2021
                                                        (DR MAHENDRA PATIDAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            2
                                            Indore, Dated : 04-10-2021
                                                 Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                                 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the applicant.

                                                 Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Government Advocate for
                                            the respondent/State.

This is the first bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.200/2021 registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar, district Ujjain for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 338, 304 and 308 of IPC.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is partner of a Firm running a hospital, in the name and style Patidar Hospital and Research Centre at Ujjain. On 04.04.2021, fire broke out in the hospital due to short circuit in the ICU and was further inflammable due to leakage of supply of oxygen through pipes to the ICU patients. The patients in the ICU were badly affected and one of them died. Initially FIR has been registered against the hospital management including the applicant, being partner of the Firm on 07.04.2021, after registration of the Merg. During the course of investigation, it has been surfaced that the hospital was

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.10.04 18:08:11 IST 2 MCRC-46205-2021

inspected by Shri Ajay Rajpur, Fire Officer under the order of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vide letter no.SAPRAVI/ 2020/539/Ujjain dated 07.08.2020. Upon physical verification, several short comings were noticed by the Fire Officer, details whereof are stated in the FIR and for ready reference, part of the FIR is quoted below:-

"tkap esa ik;k x;k fd ikVhnkj gkWLihVy esa vfXu'keu midj.k LFkkfir ugha FksA lkFk gh Qk;j vf/kadkjh }kjk ;g Hkh crk;k x;k fd vk;qDr uxj ikfyd fuxe mTtSu ds i= dzekad [email protected]@[email protected] fnukad [email protected]@2020 ds ikyu esa mTtSu fLFkr 'kkldh;@futh gkLihVy ,oa uflZax gkse esa Qk;j lalk/kuksa ds HkkSfrd lR;kiu fn;s x;s vkns'k ds ikyu esa ikVhnkj gkfLiVy dk fujh{k.k lqj{kk ekudksa ds lanHkZ esa fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa 05 ,fLVaX;w'kj izR;sd Q~yksj ij yxs gSa 04 blds vfrfjDr yxs gSaA Hkou dh vfXu lqj{kk gsrq fu;ekuqlkj Qk;j gkst;jh] Qk;j gkstckDl dk baLVkys'ku gksuk vko';d gSaA dk mYys[k dj dfe;ksa laca/kh HkkSfrd lR;kiu izfrosnu i= [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected] mTTkSu fnukad [email protected]@2020 ds ek/;e ls vk;qDr uxj ikfydk fuxe mTtSu dks yxHkx 07 ekg iwoZ gh izsf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA ftl ij dk;kZy; uxj ikfydk fuxe mTtSu }kjk Jh mek'kadj ikVhnkj ,oa M-egsUnz ikVhnkj Mk;jsDVj] ikVhnkj uflax gkse dks i= dzekad 849 fnukad [email protected]@2020 ,oa iqu% dk;kZy; ds i= dzekad 27 fnukad [email protected]@2020 uflZax gkse esa vfXu lqj{kk gsrq Qk;j baLVkys'ku djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA blds ckotwn oDr dfe;ka izca/ku }kjk nwj ugha dh xbZ A tc lqj{kk ekudks dh dfe;ka yxHkx 7 ekg iwoZ gh gkWfLiVy izca/ku ds laKku esa vk pwafd Fkh bl ij leqfpr iz;kl djrs gq;s bUgsa O;oLFkk lw/kkjuk furkar vko';d Fkk vkbZlh;w esa dksfoM fdzVhdy ejht HkrhZ Fks] lHkh ejht vius thou dks gkLihVy izca/ku ds Hkjksls ij j[kdj ;gka HkrhZ Fks ,sls esa lqj{kk ekudksa dh dfe;ksa laKku esa vkus ij Hkh brus laosnu'khy is'k¢ esa ?kksj ykijokgh gkLihVy izca/ku }kjk cjrh xbZ gSa] ftlls ejhtksa dh tku [krjs esa vkbZA vr% gkLihVy izca/[email protected] ds fo:/k mDr xaHkhj d`R; ds fy, vkijkf/kd izdj.k ntZ djus dk d"V djsaA layXu&mijksDrkuqlkj] gLrk{kj vaxzsth esa vifBr] rglhynkj] rglhy mTtSu uxj] ftyk mTtSu""

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.10.04 18:08:11 IST 3 MCRC-46205-2021

Thereafter, one of the patient Savitri Shirvastava in ICU was shifted to other place due to her deteriorated condition, but she died later on on 07.04.2021, therefore, FIR of Crime No.200/2021 was registered for offences under Sections 304-A, 337, 338, 304 and 308 of IPC on a complaint of her son Sanjay Shrivastava. The statement of Sanjay Shrivastava and witnesses namely Rajesh Bhatiya, Ramesh Parmar, Pushpkant, Anjali Chouhan, Geeta Kumara, Smt. Shiva Thomas, Shubham Patidar, Ravindra Singh @ Ravi, Govind Dubey SDM, Hemlata Agarwal, Priti Gaikwad, including the Fire Officer Shri Ajay Rajput have been recorded on 08.04.2021. The witnesses namely Manu Bhai, Pushpa Verma, Kishore Patidar, Afsha Meman, Abhay Chourasiya and Prachi Chourasiya have also been recorded on 12.04.2021, 29.05.2021, 31.05.2021 and 12.12.2021 respectively.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant though admittedly is the partner of the Firm running the hospital in question, however, cannot said to have had knowledge of the fire in the hospital. He also tried to make a vain attempt to contend that the applicant never received any communication from the Corporation or that the hospital was ever inspected by the Fire Officer. He also tried to impress upon this Court that once the FIR is registered at Crime No.198/2021, at the same Police Station, subsequent FIR on the same allegations could not have been filed. However, he has not been able to lay hands over any specific

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.10.04 18:08:11 IST 4 MCRC-46205-2021

provisions of Cr.P.C. to support such contention. Though, he submits that on conjoint reading of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C., only one FIR could have been lodged. He also relies upon judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of T.T.Anthony Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, refers to paras 18, 19 and 20 and Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, paras 20 and 21. He also relies upon another judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1.

Per contra, Shri Sisodia, learned Government Advocate submits that at the time fire broke out in the hospital and particularly in the ICU area, Merg intimation was registered on 04.04.2021. Thereafter, FIR was registered on 07.04.2021 at crime no.198/2021 at the same Police Station for offences under Sections 285, 287 and 337 of the IPC. During investigation, it was found that one of the patient, namely Savitri Shrivastava, whose condition had deteriorated because of suffocation in the ICU, was shifted to other hospital, however, she could not survive and died. After her death, the complainant, her son Sanjay Shrivastava, filed a complaint at the same Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.200/2021, therefore, it is not a case where, on same facts under the same provisions, two FIRs have been lodged. He further submits that the relevant portion of the FIR, as quoted above, clearly spells out that the hospital premises was inspected

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.10.04 18:08:11 IST 5 MCRC-46205-2021

by the Fire Officer, under the orders of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation on 07.08.2021 and several lapses were found in the matter of maintaining protocol in relation to fire extinguishers. That apart, the statement of Fire Officer has also been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 08.04.2021, detailing the complete narration of facts of physical inspection and the lapses found in the hospital with documentation. As such, it is incorrect to say that the applicant had no knowledge about the physical verification of the hospital by the Fire Officer and thereafter, repeated letters being sent to the hospital vide letter nos. Agni/nani/2020/498/Ujjain, dated 14.08.2020, 849 dated 01.10.2020 and 27 dated 05.12.2020

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the FIRs under reference, statements of the witnesses and the case diary, this Court is of the view that prima facie there is ample evidence to suggest that the hospital management has been careless and negligent in the matter of maintaining protocol in relation to fire extinguishers in the event of fire in the hospital, despite sufficient knowledge for more than 7-8 months about deficiencies communicated through letters dated 14.08.2020, 01.10.2020 and 05.12.2020. The fire broke out due to short circuit and turned inflammable due to leakage of oxygen supply lines, causing damage to patients and also one of the patient namely Savitri Shrivastava, died later on at a place where she was shifted in respect of which, separate FIR has been lodged at Crime

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.10.04 18:08:11 IST 6 MCRC-46205-2021

No.198/2021, at the same Police Station.

The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in fact are distinguishable on facts and are of no assistance to the applicant.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, regard being had to the intensity of the fire in the hospital, loss suffered by number of patients including death of one of the patient, do suggest that it is not a case of no evidence, which may entitle the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, the application is dismissed on merits.

(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE

RJ

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.10.04 18:08:11 IST