* 1 * Cri.Appln-3799/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3799 OF 2010 [FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL] Shri. Arshad Akbar Maniar ........ Applicant : V E R S U S : The State of Maharashtra [at the instance of Jawhar Police Station] ....... Respondent ********** Mr. N.V. Gangal, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The applicant apprehends his arrest in C.R. No.44 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Indian Penal code by Jawhar Police Station. He had earlier filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected by the order dated 6th August, 2010. 2. The applicant holds a degree of Bachelor of Electropathy Medicines and Surgery (B.E.M.S.). Undisputedly, with that degree the applicant is not permitted to practice as an allopathic doctor or administer any allopathy treatment. The prosecution case is that on 4th July 2006 at about 9.00 a.m. the deceased by name Darshana who had symptoms of cold & fever (“thandi taap”) was taken to the dispensary of the applicant, where he administered * 2 * Cri.Appln-3799/2010 an injection to her waist and also gave some pills. On the next day, at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning she complained of severe pain at the place of injection and started crying. Then on 8th July, 2010 she was taken to Primary Health Centre at Chambhar Shet where she died at about 7.00 a.m. The post-mortem conducted on her shows the probable cause of death as “death due to septic shock due to gas gangrene due to injection abscess- neorosis on right Gluteal region”. Thereafter, a complaint came to be filed on 14th July 2010 against the applicant under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant, that there is delay of 6 days in filing the complaint for which there is no explanation. It has also been contended that the facts alleged by the prosecution do not make out a case for offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and that at the highest it would make out a case for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The third argument is that the act of the applicant was a bonafide act and such an act cannot be treated as negligence. In that connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew V/S. State of Punjab and Another reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court page 3180. It was lastly submitted that the injection administered to the deceased by name “Diclofenac” does not cause side reaction of death. For that, reliance is place upon the opinion in the book of K.D. Tripathi on “Essentials of Medical Pharmacology”. In the instant case, the applicant undisputedly is not qualified to administer allopathy treatment. Giving of * 3 * Cri.Appln-3799/2010 “Diclofenac” injection is an allopathy treatment which the applicant could not have administered to the deceased. As regards the delay of 6 days in filing the FIR, in my opinion, the same cannot be relevant at this stage of anticipatory bail. The act of the applicant also cannot be said to be bonafide act since the applicant knew very well what his educational qualifications were and that his educational qualifications did not permit him to administer allopathy medicine. In the circumstances, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]