SAIGEETA ABASHEB ACHREKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications are under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Petition No. 89/ 97 is moved by Dr. Saigeeta Abasheb Achrekar on behalf of one Dr. Dhaniram Baruah and Sri Chemplyil Joseph James, while petition No. 93/97 is preferred by Mrs. Ho Chu Yin Becky on behalf of accused Dr. Ionathan Kei Shing Ho. Both of them claim to be highly qualified medicos. Accused Dhaniram runs a Heart Institute and Research Centre at Jogdal, Sonapur, while accused Dr. Jonathan Kei-Shing Ho, a visiting Cardiac Surgeon of the Institute. The petitioners are accused of offence punishable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 18 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. 'Gist of the accusation against them, as can be .gathered from the FIR filed by Joint Director of Health Services,Kamrup is that accused Dhaniram transplanted Pig organs into the body of one Purno Saikia which resulted in his death. The said Heart Institute, namely, Dr. Dhaniram Baruah Heart. Institute and Reasearch Centre, had neither applied for not obtained registration as required under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. On coming to know of the death of Pumo Saikia a report was lodged at the Police Station, Sonapur which led to the registration Of Khetri PS Case No. 10/97 under Section 304 1PC read with Section 18 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. Accused were arrested on 10.1.97. They applied for grant of bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, who by order dated 21.1.97 dismissed the same. On the same date the bail petition No, 89/97 on behalf of accused Dhaniram was moved, while the bail petition No. 93/97 was filed on 22.1.97. These bail petitions came to be listed before, a learned Single Judge till 6.2.97 when the learned Single Judge before whom the petitions were listed felt that in view of complicated nature of question of medical jurisprudance and other legal issues of great importance were involved, the petitions were directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for being referred to a larger Bench. Accordingly, the petitions were listed before a Division Bench on 6,2.97 when the LO. was directed to remain present in person along with the case Diary. Next date i.e. 7.2.97 on which 'Assam Bandh' was declared. The petitions were taken up again on 10,2.97, the intervening two days being holidays. On 10.2.97 when the Case Diary was produced, it was found that most of the material was in Assamese language, not known to either of the Judges. Its English Translated version was directed and the case was listed just next date on 11.2.97. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, sought for some more time for producing the translated version. It was accordingly granted till 14,2.97 and posted for today i.e. 17.2.97.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel Dr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing for the accused Dhaniram and Mr. N. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused Jonathan Keishing Ho, as also the learned Public Prosecutor Mrs. K. Deka for the respondent- State.

(3.) Although the learned counsel appearing for the accused dealt at some length on the academic distinction, qualifications and competence of the accused. To our mind, mis is not the proper stage to go into such question. The Court while considering the question of grant of bail has to take into account, amongst other considerations the nature and seriousness of me offence, the character of evidence, circumstances peculiar to the accused, availability of the accused for trial, reasonable apprehension of tempering with evidence and the larger interest of the public. The merits of the case is to be decided at the trial,