Allowed

Dr. Navneet Garg v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jun 2021ABAIL/9017/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A medical practitioner seeking anticipatory bail in a negligence case was granted bail pending trial. The court found no apprehension of fleeing justice and noted the applicant's clean criminal record and professional status.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial against a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

Dr. Navneet Garg Vs State of U.P. — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9017 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. Navneet Garg Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State through video conference.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Dr. Navneet Garg, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2021, under Sections 326, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Medical College, District-Meerut during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a medical doctor, who has treated the informant with due care. However, certain complications had occurred during the course of that treatment, not as a result of any negligent act on the part of the applicant. In any case, reliance has been placed on application dated 3rd March, 2021 moved by the applicant before the Chief Medical officer, Meerut for appointment of duly competent Medical Board before proceeding in the matter. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant is a regular medical practitioner and would not run away. The allegation would remain matter be examined on the basis of expert opinion and documentary evidence, one of which is already available in case diary, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by seeking custodial investigation in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant, who have submitted that three expert members have already opined the negligence of the applicant. That report is dated 23rd February, 2021. Therefore, the present application, which has been filed by the applicant may be rejected.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In first place it cannot be overlooked that the present applicant is a medical practitioner having M.B.B.S degree and also degree in M.S. from Meerut University. There is nothing to

¶10

doubt on the contention of the applicant that he is a regular medical practitioner in Meerut and would not run away.

¶11

At present, there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant shown as also no real apprehension has been expressed by the State of the applicant fleeing from justice, if the present application is allowed.

¶12

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present application pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage and the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in this case, at this stage.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant - Dr. Navneet Garg, involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned on the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶17

(iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

Present application stands disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.6.2021

¶20

Pr/-

Dr. Navneet Garg v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Navneet Garg v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvej and Another Vs State of U.P.

Chanchal @ Chandraketu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Dixit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Santosh Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khushboo Vs State of U.P.