Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 233 (ALL)

Suresh Chandra v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

SAMEER JAIN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sameer Jain, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Purushottam Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 449 of 2023, under Section 304 IPC & 15(2) , 15 (3) Indian Medical Council Act , Police Station-Palimukeempur, District-Aligarh, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.11.2023 against applicant and his wife under Section 304 IPC and according to FIR, when bhabhi of the informant was in her family way then on 09.11.2023 on the instigation of applicant and his wife, informant admitted her in their hospital and on 09.11.2023, she delivered a child but thereafter her condition was started deteriorating and on 09.11.2023 she was discharged from the hospital of applicant and on 20.11.2023, when informant and others were taking her to Aligarh for treatment then on the way she died. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and his wife were not the qualified doctors and due to their negligence bhabhi of the informant died. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 304-A IPC and charge sheet was also filed against the applicant under Section 304-A IPC on 10.12.2023 but when C.O. concerned directed for further investigation then during further investigation, the case has been converted under Section 304 IPC and thereafter on 02.01.2025 charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 304 IPC . 6. He further submitted that applicant is neither doctor nor he runs any clinic and actually son of the applicant is having a drug license and, however, informant came at his shop for the purpose of some medicines but when son of the applicant refused then he returned and after death of his wife, on the basis of false allegation, he lodged the FIR of the present case. 7. 7. He further submitted that as per post-mortem report, cause of death of the deceased was cardiopulmonary arrest due to septicemia and as deceased was pregnant and she delivered a child, therefore, septicemia can be developed and, therefore, it cannot be said that due to alleged treatment provided in the hospital of applicant septicemia was developed due to which, deceased died. 8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 24.12.2024. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant and his wife used to provide treatment to pregnant ladies at their drug shop and on their instigation, informant admitted his wife in their clinic and due to their negligence and incompetency subsequently she died and, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail. 10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation, applicant without any proper document had opened a clinic and at their clinic, they provided treatment to the Bhabhi of the informant while she was pregnant and due to their negligence and wrong treatment, she died but it reflects that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 304-A IPC and charge sheet was also filed under Section 304-A IPC but during further investigation case was converted under Section 304 IPC . 12. Further, law is settled bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception. 13. Further, bail application of an accused should not be withheld for punitive purpose and unless proven guilty an accused deemed to be innocent. 14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 24.12.2024. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant- Suresh Chandra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. 17. Let the applicant- Suresh Chandra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.