SIMAN MECWAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and carefully gone through the impugned order.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no negligence on the part of the applicant with regard to treatment of deceased Smt. Mamta. Further, it is contended that operation of DNC was conducted by the applicant after obtaining her consent and the allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant while has inviting the attention of this Court towards the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jacob Mathew Vs. Sate of Punjab & Anr., reported in AIR 2005 SC 3180 wherein it has been held that essential components of negligence are three : duty, breach and resulting damage, contended that all these three components are absent in the present case and the applicant was not negligent towards his duties. He has also invited the attention of this Court towards another decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Suresh Gupta Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 4091. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the bail.