S BALAGOPAL Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 312, 325, 426, 465,468, 471, 506 (i) and (ii) read with 120-Bof I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Associate Professor in Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Paediatric surgeon at Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre and he is an experienced Doctor and successfully completed number of surgeries on children. But the de facto complainant who is an Advocate had lodged complaint against the petitioner with regard to the surgery done to his child for removing his left testis.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had performed the duty with utmost care and as there was a possibility of getting cancer as the testis was small in size, the de facto complainant was informed about the possibility of Orchiodomy and it was explained that if cancer occurs in such a testis, it can be detected only in a later stage and it is impossible to treat at that stage. THErefore, the decision was taken at the time of surgery to remove the left testis.