Allegations Are General And Omnibus: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Trustees Booked For Providing Bogus Doctors To BMC Run Hospital
|The Bombay High Court granted bail to trustees accused of providing bogus doctors to BMC-run hospital.
The Court was hearing a Bail Application seeking bail in connection with FIR for offences under Sections 112, 117, 120-B, 302, 307, 416, 419, 426, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as also Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale observed, “the applicants have made out grounds for being enlarged on bail. The applicants - Sushant Ramchandra Jadhav, Birendra Baijinath Yadav and Deepak Mahaveer Jain shall be released on bail in connection….”
Advocate Viral Rathod appeared for the Appellant and APP R.M. Pethe appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
In this case, the informant approached the police, after previously seeking help from the police and moving the magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., following the death of his brother. His inquiries revealed that doctors provided by Jeevan Jyot Charitable Trust to the BMC-run M.T. Agarwal Hospital may have been unqualified or bogus. The informant claimed that 17 such doctors had worked at the hospital since 2018, leading to 149 deaths and that death certificates were improperly issued. FIRs were filed, and the Applicants in the bail applications were trustees and a doctor from the Trust.
The Court said that the FIR has been registered on the basis of material unearthed by enquiries made by the informant in connection with the affairs of the aforesaid hospital run by the BMC. “The allegations are omnibus and general in nature, pertaining to a period specified in the FIR, generally referring to deaths of 149 individuals.”, the Court observed.
The Court further observed, “…neither the statement leading to registration of the FIR nor the documents that have come on record, during the course of investigation, forming part of the charge-sheet, identify individual deaths or sufferance of individuals due to the alleged acts of commission and omission on the part of the applicants.”
The Court noted that the BMC is not even the aggrieved party or the informant in the present case and therefore, reliance placed on documents pertaining to BMC as regards the invitation of bids, conditions of awarding contract and subsequent communications sent to the trust can be said to be irrelevant for justifying registration of offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC against the accused, including the applicants.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Bail Applications.
Cause Title: Dr. Sushant Ramchandra Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:36599)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Jadhav Ashok P. Mundargi, Advocates Viral Rathod, Vishwatej, Shreyansh R. Mithare, Meghdeep Oak and Anjali Nimbkar
Respondent: APP R. M. Pethe and APP Mayur S. Sonavane