[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1778 OF 2008 1. Dr.Rasika Sirsat 2. Dr.Sharad N.Sagade ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Amit Desai along with Mr.Vineet Naik and Amit Karkhanis Advocate for Applicants Mrs.P.S.Shinde APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.103 of 2008 of Mahim Police Station, Mumbai (now transferred to DCB CID Unit-V Kurla and registered as CR NO. 61 of 2008) The said case is mainly under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 3. The case of the complainant is that he came to Bombay in search of job. He met one Ashok Desai. [-2-] The said Ashok Desai informed the complainant that one of his relatives was admitted in the hospital and he required blood. After he was taken to the hospital, applicant no.1 asked complainant his name. Complainant disclosed his real name, however, the said Ashok Desai immediately took him outside the cabin and told the complainant to disclose his name as Laldas Thakur. Hence, the complainant again went back in the cabin of applicant no.1 and he signed as Laldas Thakur. Thereafter, complainant was admitted in the hospital and he was operated on 9.1.2001. 4. The case of the complainant is that said Ashok Desai gave complainant Rs.50,000/- for the operation and promised him that he would give him a permanent job. However, thereafter the said Ashok Desai started avoiding complainant. In 2003 the complainant came to know that his kidney was removed without his permission. Hence, he went to Mahim Police Station in the year 2005. Thereafter, he lodged his complaint on 10.4.2008. 5. The prosecution case is that applicant no.2 had performed operation. Hence, he has been implicated [-3-] in the present case. However, if the procedure relating to kidney transplant is seen, it is seen that there is a panel who verifies all the papers and thereafter grants permission to perform operation of kidney transplant. The panel consisted of three Doctors from St.George Hospital which is not the hospital where the operation was performed. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no.2 had no occasion to make any enquiry with the complainant and after receipt of the papers which had been okayed by the panel, he performed operation and hence, he cannot be said to be responsible for the said act. There is no material on record to show that applicant no.2 had any chance to interact with the complainant prior to the operation and he has only forwarded the papers to the authorisation committee and only after the authorisation committee gave its approval, operation was performed by applicant no.2. Though enquiry is going on in the matter since 2005, no material has been revealed that applicant No.2 knew that the complainant was posing as someone else and he had not given his consent for the operation. Admittedly the complainant had signed all the papers without any inducement, force [-4-] or instigation from any of the applicants. 6. As far as applicant no.1 is concerned, it is stated that she is a lady and case of the complainant is that he had informed her his real name. However, it is seen that Ashok Desai immediately pulled him out of the cabin and instructed him to give his name as Laldas Thakur and accordingly, complainant entered into the cabin and thereafter signed as Laldas Thakur. Had applicant no.1 known that the complainant was posing as somebody else there was no need for applicant no.1 to ask his name. Moreover, there was no need for Ashok Desai to immediately pull the complainant out of cabin and inform him to give his name as Laldas Thakur. This shows that applicant No.1 was not aware of the real name of the complainant or that he was posing as someone else. 7. The complainant admits that he was paid Rs.50,000/- for the operation. If it was a regular operation which was necessary to be performed on the complainant, in such case there was no necessity to pay the complainant any money. The material on record shows that the complainant was [-5-] aware of the facts and he consented to the operation, however, as Ashok Desai did not give him a job as promised, after much delay the complainant approached the police. This delay also raises doubt about the veracity of the complainant. 8. Moreover, the learned APP has stated that applicants are attending the office of the Investigating Agency and they are cooperating with the investigation. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 9. In the event of arrest, each of the applicant nos. 1 and 2 i.e. applicant no.1 Dr.Mrs.Rasika Sirsat and applicant no.2 Dr.Sharad N.Sagade be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousand only) each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and they shall report to the Investigating Agency as and when required. 10. Application disposed of. [-6-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]