1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.888 OF 2010 Shaikh Nishad Shaikh Mussa ...Applicant. v. Dr. Nilesh V. Nikam & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.V.N.Bolinjkar i/by Mr. S.M.Kamble ,advs. For the Applicant. Mr. Ashish Giri a/w Ms Bharati Garud, advs. For the Respondent No.1. Smt. G.P.Mulekar, APP for the R.No./2 State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 8, 2011. P.C. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This application is filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.1 in Regular Criminal Case No.55 of 2010 pending before the J.M.F.C., Malegaon . 3 Case was registered on the complaint filed by the complainant/applicant. According to him, he was suffering from abdominal pain and he had been to the hospital of accused no.3 Yashwant Patil, who referred him to accused no.1 Sanjay Dhawane for taking X ray. Accused no.1 Sanjay Dhawane opined that the complainant 2 was suffering from some disease related to kidneys. Accordingly, accused no.3 Dr. Yashwant started treatment but there was no improvement. Then after taking fresh X rays he was shifted to hospital of accused no.2 Dr. Nilesh Nikam. According to the complainant, respondent no.1 Dr. Nilesh had asked relatives of the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- for further treatment. Then as per the advice, he was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Faran where it was revealed that he was actually suffering from Appendicitis. He was given treatment and he was also relieved from pain. According to the complainant, respondent no.1 was about to remove his kidney by performing operation and, therefore, he filed complaint against all the three doctors for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 279 IPC. Looking to the facts, Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon granted anticipatory bail to the respondent no.1. 4 In view of the facts noted above, it appears that there could be possibility of wrong diagnosis on the part of the doctors. The complainant has filed the complaint under the different sections only presuming that the respondent no.1 was going to remove his kidney. Thus, the complaint is about some offence, which was never committed but which according to the complainant was likely to be committed. I 3 really fail to understand what purpose will be served by taking the respondent no.1 in custody. The learned APP makes a statement after investigation police have filed C summary report, which shows that no case is made out. In view of these circumstances, I find no substance in the present application. 5 Therefore, the application stands dismissed subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the complainant/applicant to the respondent no.1. Rule discharged. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)