High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Avnish Kumar Alias Avnish Rajpoot with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 31.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Firozabad and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 184 of 2024 under Sections 105, 318(4), 319(2) of BNS, Section 15(2)(b) of Indian Medical Council Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Fariha, District Firozabad.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

4. In an illegally running medical clinic the medical treatment was going on and the said clinic was sealed by the police which was running by the present appellant but he again established an unregistered medical clinic where treatment of the minor daughter of Raju was made by the accused appellant which resulted into her sad death. The said clinic was also sealed by the police. On a written application of the informant Dr. V.D. Agrawal, Deputy C.M.O., Firozabad an F.I.R. was lodged against the present appellant and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the appellant has no concern at all with the alleged offence. Entire prosecution story is based on false and concocted facts. The present appellant has absolutely no concern with the alleged illegally running medical clinic nor it was running by him. It is also submitted that no treatment of the deceased was ever made by the present appellant and he has no concern with the death of the said patient. It is also submitted that the appellant is competent to run a medical clinic because he has obtained a degree of Bachelor of Science in Medical Imaging Technology from Tata Institute of Medical Imaging Technology in September, 2023 and accordingly he is working in the field of imaging and not as a doctor. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and in the post mortem report cause of death of the deceased was uncertain hence viscera was preserved. It is further submitted that at the time of inquest Raju, father of the deceased and his son Arjun were present but they never disclosed this fact that the treatment of the deceased was ever performed by the present appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is in jail since 4.12.2024. The Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 opposing the prayer submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. It is also submitted that the accused appellant was running a forged and unregistered medical clinic and the deceased was taken to his clinic by his father where on account of wrong treatment of the present appellant her death was caused. Earlier medical clinic run by the present appellant was sealed by the police hence he again opened an unregistered and unrecognized medical clinic at another place where he started treatment of the deceased without having any proper degree / diploma and he was never a recognized doctor. He administered some dangerous injection to the deceased which caused her unfortunate death. It is also submitted that in the inquest report it is mentioned that in the opinion of panchas death of the deceased appeared to be caused on account of some wrong treatment of the doctor. The I.O. of this case has made thorough investigation in the matter and charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant and cognizance has also been taken by the competent Court. There is ample evidence against the appellant on record. Offence committed by the appellant is very serious and grievous. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the fact that the accused appellant very well knew that he was not competent to do the treatment of the deceased because of having no valid degree / diploma and he was not a registered medical practitioner and prima facie it appears in the facts and circumstances of the case that death of the deceased was caused only on account of giving wrong injection to the deceased by the appellant which was proved fatal to her, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Avnish Kumar Alias Avnish Rajpoot with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 31.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Firozabad and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 184 of 2024 under Sections 105, 318(4), 319(2) of BNS, Section 15(2)(b) of Indian Medical Council Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Fariha, District Firozabad.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

4. In an illegally running medical clinic the medical treatment was going on and the said clinic was sealed by the police which was running by the present appellant but he again established an unregistered medical clinic where treatment of the minor daughter of Raju was made by the accused appellant which resulted into her sad death. The said clinic was also sealed by the police. On a written application of the informant Dr. V.D. Agrawal, Deputy C.M.O., Firozabad an F.I.R. was lodged against the present appellant and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the appellant has no concern at all with the alleged offence. Entire prosecution story is based on false and concocted facts. The present appellant has absolutely no concern with the alleged illegally running medical clinic nor it was running by him. It is also submitted that no treatment of the deceased was ever made by the present appellant and he has no concern with the death of the said patient. It is also submitted that the appellant is competent to run a medical clinic because he has obtained a degree of Bachelor of Science in Medical Imaging Technology from Tata Institute of Medical Imaging Technology in September, 2023 and accordingly he is working in the field of imaging and not as a doctor. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and in the post mortem report cause of death of the deceased was uncertain hence viscera was preserved. It is further submitted that at the time of inquest Raju, father of the deceased and his son Arjun were present but they never disclosed this fact that the treatment of the deceased was ever performed by the present appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is in jail since 4.12.2024. The Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 opposing the prayer submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. It is also submitted that the accused appellant was running a forged and unregistered medical clinic and the deceased was taken to his clinic by his father where on account of wrong treatment of the present appellant her death was caused. Earlier medical clinic run by the present appellant was sealed by the police hence he again opened an unregistered and unrecognized medical clinic at another place where he started treatment of the deceased without having any proper degree / diploma and he was never a recognized doctor. He administered some dangerous injection to the deceased which caused her unfortunate death. It is also submitted that in the inquest report it is mentioned that in the opinion of panchas death of the deceased appeared to be caused on account of some wrong treatment of the doctor. The I.O. of this case has made thorough investigation in the matter and charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant and cognizance has also been taken by the competent Court. There is ample evidence against the appellant on record. Offence committed by the appellant is very serious and grievous. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the fact that the accused appellant very well knew that he was not competent to do the treatment of the deceased because of having no valid degree / diploma and he was not a registered medical practitioner and prima facie it appears in the facts and circumstances of the case that death of the deceased was caused only on account of giving wrong injection to the deceased by the appellant which was proved fatal to her, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad