Crl. Misc. No. M-21464 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-21464 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 24, 2009 Rajesh Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Rajesh Kumar has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.284 dated 26.03.2009, under Sections 332, 353, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Karnal. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner, who is a Radiographer in Government Hospital, Karnal, did not give duplicate X-ray report to the father of a patient, who went to the complainant Dr. Rakesh Mittal (RMO of the hospital). The complainant called the petitioner and asked him to give duplicate report of X-ray, but the petitioner was reluctant to comply with the order. On repeated orders by the complainant, the Crl. Misc. No. M-21464 of 2009 2 petitioner shouted loudly and misbehaved with the complainant. Patient's father told that the petitioner was demanding money for issuing duplicate report. Previously also, there were a number of similar complaints of corruption against the petitioner and he was advised many times not to do so. Other doctors also came in, but the petitioner continued to shout and also threatened the complainant of dire consequences in the presence of other doctors as well. The petitioner also obstructed the complainant in performance of his duty. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it was not duty of the petitioner to issue duplicate report. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Manjit Singh, stated that other doctors named in the FIR have supported the complainant's version. This Court, by granting anticipatory bail in such a case, would not encourage corruption, indiscipline or insubordination. Without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the petitioner, in my view, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. August 24, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE