Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32294 of 2018 Applicant :- Vimlesh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The allegation against the applicant is that he is not a qualified doctor and treats the patients in the village. A complaint was made to the Health Superintendent, Government Hospital, Sonbhadra on 1.11.2017 against the applicant that on account of medicines and injection given by the applicant, a minor child has died. On 9.11.2017 the Health Superintendent has directed initiation of inquiry against the applicant. The show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 1.11.2017 itself and thereafter first information report has been lodged on 24.11.2017. The statement of the informant has been recorded on the same date by the Investigating Officer i.e. 24.11.2017 and the medicines in possession of the applicant was recovered on 25.11.2017 and charge sheet has been filed on 2.12.2017.
The argument is that the applicant has been implicated as a result of well planned conspiracy since on 1.11.2017 complaint was made before the Health Superintendent and he directed inquiry on 9.11.2017, but the show cause notice was issued on 1.11.2017 itself. Moreover, first information report was lodged on 24.11.2017 and on the same date the statement of the informant was recorded and on 2.12.2017 charge sheet has been submitted. Such a course of event shows some malafide involved in the proceedings since the investigation normally does not takes place by the police in such a short time nor the inquiry, ordered by the Government Officers, are conducted within such short time. The applicant has denied any receipt of the show cause notice dated 1.11.2017 and has argued that he has been implicated without issuance of any notice and opportunity of hearing. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 27.7.2018.
On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Vimlesh Kumar Singh involved in Case Crime No.253 of 2017, under Section 420 I.P.C and Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 T. Sinha