1 Cri.Appln.No.5201/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5201/2010 1) Saheba s/o Gajanan Kale and another. - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) Dr.Sidhavaram Deepak Subramanyam and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicants; Mr.VD Hon, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr.VH Dighe, APP for Resp.Nos. 2 & 3. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 11th April, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard lerned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) The original complainant/applicant herein seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1051/2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar dated 26.10.2009, whereby he confirmed the order dated 17.8.2009 passed below application Exhibit-4 in the application. 2 Cri.Appln.No.5201/2010 3) Several facets of laches, lapses, remissness of the police officers are coined; role attributed to the present respondent No.1 is very minimal. 4) The female patient, may be allegedly in custody, was gasping, brought to the hospital; she was breathing with difficulty, her pulse was feeble, consequently Dr. Salunke, who was on duty, informed the police station on telephone and police asked him to report the subject in another police station. The only mistake, that has surfaced committed by the attending medical officer of the hospital was, the patient Suman Kale had certain injuries which were not recorded/referred in the medical papers. 5) I have persistently asked Mr.Deshmukh, can there be any concert or agreement between respondent no.1 herein and the police officers, who had brutally assaulted or had a brawl in the activities. However, Mr. Deshmukh submits, negligence, which the doctor has shown and the police, though had no reason to carry the patient to any other hospital,speaks volume. 6) The respondent no.1 as medical officer, was not expected to ask the police or the personnel accompanying the patient to carry her 3 Cri.Appln.No.5201/2010 to any other hospital, to avoid treatment. The duties, which are cast on the medical officer, were profusely and openly performed. I do not see any reason or laxity on the part of the attending Medical Officer in giving emergent services to the patient. Accordingly, the omissions in recording the injuries, which he felt noticeably not vital, considering the gasping condition of the patient, will not go to the root of cancelling of the bail, which the learned Judge considered. This was, in the light of the solemn obligation cast on the medical officer, reported in the matter of Pandit Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India – 1989 AIR 2039. Applying this scale, I do not see any emergent situation is crept in to terminate the discretion, that has been exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The application lacks merit, dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/