Bombay HC grants bail to trustees, homeopathic doctor allegedly providing bogus doctors to M. T. Agarwal Hospital

Bombay High Court: In the present case, bail applications were filed by applicants seeking bail in a case registered with Mulund Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 112 ¹, 117 ², 120-B ³, 302 ⁴, 307 ⁵, 416 ⁶, 419 ⁷, 426 ⁸, 465 ⁹, 471 ¹⁰ read with Section 34 ¹¹ of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and also Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 (‘the 1961 Act’) for providing bogus doctors to M. T. Agarwal Hospital. A Single Judge Bench of Manish Pitale, J., opined that the allegations were omnibus and general in nature and neither the statement leading to registration of FIR nor the documents that were placed on record, during investigation, identify individual deaths or sufferance of individuals due to the alleged acts of commission and omission on the part of applicants. The Court thus released the three applicants on bail.

Background

In the present case, the informant’s brother was found unconscious and when he was taken to M. T. Agarwal Hospital, which is run by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (‘BMC’), he was declared dead. The informant made enquiries into the workings of the hospital under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and he came to know that over a considerable period, doctors provided by a particular Trust called Jeevan Jyot Charitable Trust could be said to be either bogus doctors or doctors not having appropriate qualifications for providing services in the ICU/ICCU departments of the hospital. According to the enquiries, 17 such doctors provided by the Trust had given their services from 2018 onwards, resulting in 149 deaths.

It was stated that the death certificates were issued by bogus doctors and the causes of death recorded in such death certificates were mechanically recorded and that they had no connection with the actual cause of death of patients. The names of the trustees and those associated with the Trust were mentioned and the names of three doctors were specifically mentioned, who could be called bogus doctors, thus, based on these assertions, FIR was registered.

It was submitted that the offences registered in the present case were serious and the role of trustees-Accused 4 and 5, that is, applicants in Bail Application No. 834 of 2024 and Bail Application No. 1008 of 2024, respectively, were evidently made out by the material on record and regarding Accused 3, that is, applicant in Bail Application No. 185 of 2024, there was enough material to indicate that he had impersonated and thereby committed offences leading to death and harm to the life and limb of innocent patients.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court stated that the informant’s statement did not identify individual/s as victims whose deaths/injuries could be relatable to specific acts of commission/omission on the part of applicants before this Court. The FIR was registered based on the material unearthed by enquiries made in connection with the affairs of the hospital. The Court opined that the allegations were omnibus and general in nature and neither the statement leading to registration of FIR nor the documents that were placed on record, during investigation, identify individual deaths or sufferance of individuals due to the alleged acts of commission and omission on the part of applicants. Thus, the Court stated that at this stage, it was impossible to understand the connection of applicants to the death of identified individuals in respect of the offences registered under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. Therefore, applicants have made out a prima facie case in their favour.

The Court stated that the documents pertaining to BMC regarding the invitation of bids, the conditions of awarding the contract and subsequent communications sent to the Trust, were wholly irrelevant to the offences registered under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and such documents could only show that there was enough ground for BMC to act against the Trust of either cancelling the contract or imposing penalties, if so provided under the contract or law. The Court opined that as BMC was not even an aggrieved party or the informant in the present case, therefore reliance placed on such documents could be said to be irrelevant for justifying registration of offences under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.

The Court took note of the contentions by Accused 4 and 5 that they had either marginal or no role to play in details of engaging medical professionals being supplied to the hospital run by BMC as per the contract and thus opined that invoking Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, prima facie, was not sustainable against these accused persons. The Court further took note of the the registration certificate issued by the Maharashtra Council of Homeopathy, Mumbai, and opined that Accused 3 had made out a prima facie case in his favour indicating that offence under Section 33 of the 1961 Act was not made out.

The Court stated that to prove that Accused 3 impersonated another doctor, the witnesses that were relied on, they themselves came to know from the police that Accused 3 had impersonated another doctor. The Court opined that these witnesses were not able to identify Accused 3 as a doctor, who performed duties in the ICU/ICCU.

The Court noted that applicants had undergone imprisonment for more than a year and the charge sheet was already filed. The Court opined that the charge was yet to be framed and considering the volume of the matter, it would be reasonable to conclude that the trial might not commence in the foreseeable future. Hence, applicants have made out grounds for being enlarged on bail. The Court thus held that the three applicants should be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs 50,000 each with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

[Sushant Ramchandra Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2991, decided on 11-09-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Applicant: Viral Rathod a/w Vishwatej Jadhav; Ashok P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w Shreyansh R. Mithare, Meghdeep Oak and Anjali Nimbkar

For the Respondent: R. M. Pethe, APP a/w Mayur S. Sonavane, APP