* 1 * BA-1913-2011 20 Dec, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1913 OF 2011 Dr. Pradeep Radheshyam Vyas ..... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Senior Inspector of Borivali Police Station) ..... Respondent Mr. Satish Maneshinde i/by. Ms./ Snehal Khairnar & Mr. Sadanand Shetty, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for State. Mr. Sayeed Akhtar, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 20 December, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The applicant herein is an Cardiologist attached to Lilavati Hospital, Breach Candy Hospital, Seven Hills Hospital, Cumbala Hills Hospital and BSES Hospital is an expert in Angioplast having taken training in Switzerland and Israel and claims to have 3000 angioplasties to his credit. He runs a hospital by name Raj Jyoti Hospital at Borivali. He has been arrayed as an accused in C.R. No. 239 of 2011 registered with Borivali Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 304, 304(A), 350, 351, 354, 192, 506, 341, 509 read with 120(B) Indian Penal Code in connection with the * 2 * BA-1913-2011 20 Dec, 2011 death of one Meenakshi Murthy. The complainant is Hemlata B. Thakur, the daughter of Meenakshi Murthy. 2. Meenakshi, aged 76 years used to reside alone at Mumbai. The complainant herself resides at Ahmedabad alongwith her husband. Her brother, Ravi is a resident of Bahrain where he resides on account of his employment. Geetanjali, wife of Ravi works at Delhi and alternates between Bahrain and Delhi. The only relative staying closer to Meenakshi is the married daughter of the complainant, who resides nearby with her husband. At the relevant time, she and her husband were also out of India. Therefore on 2nd May, 2011 when Meenakshi felt uneasy, uncomfortable and lonely there was no family member near her including the complainant. She knew the applicant in whose hospital she was treated as indoor-patient during 25th April, 2011 to 29th April, 2011 for Orthopnoea (respiratory distress) and Pedal Edema (swollen legs). At her request, she was admitted to Raj Jyoti Hospital on 2nd May, 2011. On 6th May, 2011 at about 10.00 a.m. she died in the hospital. 3. The complainant, claims that her husband received a telephone call on 6th April, 2011 about the death of Meenakshi at Mumbai. Thereafter, she immediately rushed to Mumbai and on enquiries found that Meenakshi had died while she was admitted to Raj Jyoti Hospital. * 3 * BA-1913-2011 20 Dec, 2011 From that hospital, the dead body of Meenakshi had been taken to the morgue at Cooper Hospital. Therefore, the complainant went to Cooper Hospital and identified the body of her mother. Apparently, there are disputes between the complainant and her brother, Ravi. Immediately after the death of Meenakshi in the Hospital itself, there was a quarrel between the siblings and police had to be called to the hospital. In view of the disputes between the family members, post-mortem was performed on the body of Meenakshi. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death of Meenakshi was natural death. However, in view of the unreported decision in the case of Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab & anr. delivered in Appeal (Crl) No. 144-145 of 2004 dated 5 th August, 2005 , the Borivali Police Station sought opinion of the Medical Board in case of death of Meenakshi. The reference was made on 1st October, 2011 and the report of the Board is dated 25th October, 2011. It appears that at the time of the first reference for opinion, some documents were not made available to the Board. Therefore, a second reference for opinion came to be made in the month of November, 2011 and the second report dated 1st December, 2011 received. There is marked difference in the two reports. The first report completely exonerates the applicant, whereas the second report finds faults with him as regards the treatment given to Meenakshi as * 4 * BA-1913-2011 20 Dec, 2011 also the record maintained at the hospital. According to the Second Board, the last treatment given by the applicant to Meenakshi as seen from the Indoor Hospital record, was insufficient. 4. Mr. Maneshinde, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that opinion expressed by the Second Board that all the medical records for the period 2nd May, 2011 to 6th May, 2011 in respect of the treatment given to Meenakshi appeared to be fabricated and manipulated was beyond the scope of reference. He further submits that perusal of the medical history of Meenakshi goes back to the year 1986 and indicates that she had series of medical history and various ailments before she became the patient of the applicant. He points out that at the time Meenakshi died, her son Ravi and his wife, Geetanjali were present in the Hospital. Therefore, the applicant has been dragged into the complaint without any reason and only on the ground of misplaced suspicions. 5. Mr. Akhtar, who has appeared on behalf of the complainant, submits that the opinion of the Board that the medical records in respect of Meenakshi appear to be fabricated and manipulated is a very serious fact and expresses an apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail, there would be further fabrication or manipulation. The same apprehension is expressed by the learned APP also. * 5 * BA-1913-2011 20 Dec, 2011 6. The complaint in this case was registered on 1st December, 2011. The applicant was arrested on 6th December, 2011. During the course of investigation, the police have taken charge of all the relevant documents from the Hospital. Therefore, it is obvious that further custody of the applicant is not required for the purpose of investigation. This also takes care of the apprehension expressed by the respondent. The applicant being a well known Doctor attached to several Hospitals, there is no question of the applicant either absconding or not being available for the trial as and when the same commences. Hence, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. The applicant shall attend Borivali Police Station, as and when called. The applicant be released on cash bail for a period of 2 weeks to enable him to furnish surety. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]