High Court

2. Learned counsel appearing on bhealf of the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. He has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant is the owner of Arpit Hospital at Gorakhpur. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 16.02.2025. The first information report was lodged on 23.02.2025 by the informant Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, Deputy Chief Medical Officer at Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur being Case Crime No. 155 of 2025, under Sections 229, 318 (4), 319 (2) of B.N.S. naming Dr. Sakib Saleem and some unknown persons including the Managing Authority of that Hospital regarding incident dated 18.02.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that license of the hospital has been cancelled. As per the allegations, no proper treatment was provided to the patient who has been referred to other hospital. The named co- accused Dr. Sakib Saleem has given an affidavit before the C.M.O. concerned and submitted that he was present in the hospital on the date of incident, therefore, there is no force in the allegation that no doctor was available to provide treatment to the said patient in the hospital and only untrained doctors were available. It is further submitted that Dr. Sakib Saleem is well qualified doctor and recognized by Medical Council of India. The Inspection has been taken place in the hospital by the Deputy C.M.O. Sri Anil Kumar Singh and after the physical inspection, the report has been submitted and based on the report submitted by him, the license of the hospital has been cancelled. It is also pointed out in the report that the owner as well as doctors of the hospital was not present at the time of inspection and only 2-3 staff wards were present in the hospital. Learned counsel further submitted that on the date of incident, the applicant was under the custody and therefore, he could not present in the hospital at the time of inspection. He was also not aware about the said inspection. Learned counsel further submitted that the owner of the hospital was already in the custody therefore, no criminal intent is made out against him as alleged in the F.I.R. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant has already been enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2025 by this Court on 21.04.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant is well rooted person in the society and there are no chance of applicant fleeing from the justice. Applicant is permanent resident of address mentioned in the memo of bail application. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed on 13.04.2025. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant also undertaken that he will abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court while granting bail.

3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the instant bail application and submitted that present applicant is owner of the hospital and he has employed untrained doctors for treatment of poor people of the area. Referring some statements of the witnesses, he also submitted that doctors who are working in the hospital are not owning the medical qualification as approved by the Medical Council of India. It is also submitted that charge sheet has been filed but investigation is still going on. He further contended that instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard Sri Anand Vibhor Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S. K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the contents made in the first information report as well as material placed on record.

5. It is not denied by the State that at the time of inspection, the applicant was in jail, therefore, the content of report of inspecting team that the owner of the hospital was not found at the time of inspection in the hospital, has no force. The other allegations as made by the Inspecting Team that no doctor was present in the hospital at the time of inspection are not connecting the present applicant for commission of any offence as alleged as he was not aware about the said inspection. Charge sheet has already been filed. Applicant is permanent resident of address mentioned in the memo of bail application. There are very dim chance of conclusion of trial in near future. After perusing the case diary, I do not find any credible material on record to connect the applicant in the instant case at this stage. It is also undertaken on behalf of applicant that he will abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court while granting bail.

6. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid reasons,without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant-Praveen Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 AKT (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

2. Learned counsel appearing on bhealf of the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. He has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant is the owner of Arpit Hospital at Gorakhpur. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 16.02.2025. The first information report was lodged on 23.02.2025 by the informant Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, Deputy Chief Medical Officer at Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur being Case Crime No. 155 of 2025, under Sections 229, 318 (4), 319 (2) of B.N.S. naming Dr. Sakib Saleem and some unknown persons including the Managing Authority of that Hospital regarding incident dated 18.02.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that license of the hospital has been cancelled. As per the allegations, no proper treatment was provided to the patient who has been referred to other hospital. The named co- accused Dr. Sakib Saleem has given an affidavit before the C.M.O. concerned and submitted that he was present in the hospital on the date of incident, therefore, there is no force in the allegation that no doctor was available to provide treatment to the said patient in the hospital and only untrained doctors were available. It is further submitted that Dr. Sakib Saleem is well qualified doctor and recognized by Medical Council of India. The Inspection has been taken place in the hospital by the Deputy C.M.O. Sri Anil Kumar Singh and after the physical inspection, the report has been submitted and based on the report submitted by him, the license of the hospital has been cancelled. It is also pointed out in the report that the owner as well as doctors of the hospital was not present at the time of inspection and only 2-3 staff wards were present in the hospital. Learned counsel further submitted that on the date of incident, the applicant was under the custody and therefore, he could not present in the hospital at the time of inspection. He was also not aware about the said inspection. Learned counsel further submitted that the owner of the hospital was already in the custody therefore, no criminal intent is made out against him as alleged in the F.I.R. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant has already been enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2025 by this Court on 21.04.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant is well rooted person in the society and there are no chance of applicant fleeing from the justice. Applicant is permanent resident of address mentioned in the memo of bail application. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed on 13.04.2025. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant also undertaken that he will abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court while granting bail.

3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the instant bail application and submitted that present applicant is owner of the hospital and he has employed untrained doctors for treatment of poor people of the area. Referring some statements of the witnesses, he also submitted that doctors who are working in the hospital are not owning the medical qualification as approved by the Medical Council of India. It is also submitted that charge sheet has been filed but investigation is still going on. He further contended that instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard Sri Anand Vibhor Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S. K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the contents made in the first information report as well as material placed on record.

5. It is not denied by the State that at the time of inspection, the applicant was in jail, therefore, the content of report of inspecting team that the owner of the hospital was not found at the time of inspection in the hospital, has no force. The other allegations as made by the Inspecting Team that no doctor was present in the hospital at the time of inspection are not connecting the present applicant for commission of any offence as alleged as he was not aware about the said inspection. Charge sheet has already been filed. Applicant is permanent resident of address mentioned in the memo of bail application. There are very dim chance of conclusion of trial in near future. After perusing the case diary, I do not find any credible material on record to connect the applicant in the instant case at this stage. It is also undertaken on behalf of applicant that he will abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court while granting bail.

6. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid reasons,without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant-Praveen Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 AKT (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)