Delhi High Court: Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., denied bail to the petitioner who is accused of commission of offence under Section 315 (act done with intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to die after birth) and Section 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Penal Code, 1860.
The instant application was filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 482 CrPC seeking regular bail in the FIR registered under Section 315 of Penal Code, 1860.
Contentions
Petitioners Counsel, Madhusmita Bora, Advocate submitted that the petitioner’s age is 70 years and in terms of the decision in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, he ought not to have been arrested. Further, it was added that the petitioner is otherwise qualified as a medical surgeon and performed the surgery at the request of the hospital concerned.
Additionally, it was submitted that the FIR was of the year 2015, but petitioner got arrested in the year 2020.
Neelam Sharma, APP for State submitted that though the FIR was initially registered under Section 315 IPC subsequently, Section 304 IPC was added as the patient had expired. Further, it was added to the submissions that, petitioner was neither on the panel of the hospital nor even a visiting surgeon.
Petitioner, knowing fully well that he was not a qualified Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, still performed the surgery when there was no urgency as the pregnancy was only 19-20 weeks old, which led to the death of the patient.
A complaint was made to Delhi Medical Council, which, after Disciplinary proceedings found all the Doctors concerned guilty of negligence. In fact, it was found that co-accused, Dr Hitender Vashisht, the In-charge/Director of R.P. Memorial Hospital was not even registered with the DMC as he is not the holder of qualification in Modern Scientific System of Medicine and should refrain from pre-fixing ‘Dr.’ to his name.
Petitioners Counsel made a bald assertion that no Doctor ought to be arrested in a case of medical negligence however, it is seen that in the present case, the Investigating Officer has taken an independent opinion from Delhi Medical Council, which conducted the Disciplinary proceedings.
It has been observed that the Disciplinary Committee, comprising of four Doctors, found the petitioner guilty along with other co-accused persons.
In fact, the Disciplinary Committee recommended that the name of the petitioner be removed from the State Medical Register of the Delhi Medical Council for a period of 180 days. The decision was confirmed by Delhi Medical Council and the petitioner’s name was removed for 180 days.
Supreme Court’s decisions in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, State U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, have considered parameters of a bail application.
Bench observed that the petitioner did not deny the fact that he had performed the alleged surgery on the deceased.
Hence on taking into consideration the Disciplinary Committee’s report and its recommendations, Court prima facie opined that the there was reasonable ground to believe that the petition had committed the offence.
Bail application to the petitioner was denied.[Suresh Chandra Gupta v. NCT of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1594, decided on 09-12-2020]
