PRASHANT TYAGI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case No.18845/2021 (State vs. Prashant Tyagi), Case Crime No.278/2019, under Ss. 419/420 I.P.C. and Sec. 15(2) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Police Station Medical College, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. According to prosecution version, on 17/4/2019, the complainant/Deputy C.M.O. Meerut has inspected some laboratories and four labs including Drasti pathology were found unregistered and thereafter first information report of this case was lodged under Sec. 419/420 IPC and sec. 15(2) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Learned counsel submitted that after 14 months of lodging of the first informant report, the involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of complainant, wherein, he has inter-alia stated that he came to know that the owner of said Drasti pathology is accused/applicant Prashant Tyagi. It is submitted that there is no documentary evidence to connect the applicant with the said lab. The applicant has no connection with the said lab and in fact applicant is running a hospital in the name of Neelkanth Hospital and Trauma Center. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial and would obey all conditions of bail.