SANDEEP VOHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a petition u/s-438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.112/2002, u/Ss.329/498A/120-B/34 IPC. P.S.Parshad Nagar, Delhi. FIR number and sections were not initially mentioned in the petition. On oral prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner was permitted to add FIR number and sections etc. on the petition with signatures.

(2.) . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an M.B.B.S. from University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and M.D in Psychiatry from Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi. He is a senior Consultant Psychiatrist Indraprastha, Apollo Hospitals and a Consultant Psychiatrist on the Panel of Fresh and German Embassies. He is also running a Neuropsychiatry Centre at Patel Nagar, which has now beet registered in pursuance of the advertisement by the State Government in the Times of India newspaper dated 27.1.2002; that the patient had paranoid problem; that petitioner admitted the patient on the emergency request and written consent of her husband on 15th April, 2002, which was found necessary and in the interest of the patient; that the medical course taken by the petitioner as a qualified doctor in psychiatry does not involve commission of any offence. The patient was provided treatment, on the basis of the description, provided by her husband. It revealed that patient was "paranoid" and was refusing to be taken to the doctor or treated or to recognise her illness. It is submitted that petitioner was harassed by the police of P.S. Prasad Nagar at the behest of brother of the patient, who is an IAS officer. Patient was discharged from Nursing Home on 17-4-2002 at the request of her brother. The signature of her brother (Tulsi Gaur) were taken, wherein he specifically recorded that "I have nothing against the Doctor". It is further submitted that petitioner has fully participated in the investigation; nothing incriminating is recovered from him, therefore, he is entitled for pre-arrest bail.

(3.) . Learned counsel for State, on the other hand, strongly opposed the application and argued that petitioner was not a "Medical Officer" or "Medical Officer Incharge" as defined in Section 2 (i) & (j) of the Mental Health Act (for short, "the Act"), The patient was admitted in violation of the provision of Section 19(2) the Act dealing with the admission of the mentally ill persons, as necessary certificates from other doctors were not obtained. She argued that petitioner in connivance with the husband of patient with an intent to get her declared insane administered stupefying drugs with an intent to cause hurt etc. to make her leave the home where she was living. She was abducted from her house after administering sedative injection. She was wrongfully kept in the nursing home, to facilitate the commission of offence. She further submitted that earlier wife of the patient's husband had also committed suicide. Some of the co-accused (other employees of the Nursing Home), who are yet to be interrogated in the case, are absconding, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.