Dismissed

Ram Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023/223/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the rejection of bail by a Special Judge under the SC/ST Act in a case involving medical negligence. The High Court upheld the rejection, noting the appellant admitted renting the property to a non-qualified technician, leading to the illegal running of a clinic.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is rejected and the criminal appeal is dismissed.

Ram Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50092

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 223 of 2023 Appellant :- Ram Prasad Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Mishra,Arti Ganguly,Desh Raj Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) S.C./S.T. Act against impugned order dated 03.11.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, District Sitapur in Bail Application No. 562 of 2022 (Computerized No. C.N.R. No. UPS1010078992022) arising out of Case Crime No. 370 of 2022, under Sections 304/420 I.P.C. and Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Reusa, District Sitapur, whereby bail application of the appellant- Ram Prasad Jaiswal has been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the prosecution story, wife of the complainant namely Smt Reshma was pregnant and on 26.09.2022, firstly she was admitted with the help of Asha Bahu at CHC Reusa, District Sitapur and later on she was referred at District Hospital, Sitapur and in the meantime the Asha Bahu advised for admitting Smt. Reshama at Jaiswal Clinic and thereafter he deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and due to medical negligency Smt. Reshma died.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant being owner of the property in question, let out the same to one Raj Kumar Pal son of Jai Nath Pal resident of Village Keshavpur Police Station Lambhuwa District Sitapur, presently working as Technician in Ashiravad Hospital, IIM Road, Lucknow for running a clinic. He further submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the appellant will not tamper with evidence of witnesses and will cooperate during

¶9

the course of trial, if enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed this appeal by submitting that the appellant has himself admitted this fact that he studied upto class VIII and has no knowledge in medical field. It is not in dispute that the appellant is not the owner of the property in which the aforesaid hospital was running and let out the same to one Raj Kumar Pal working as Technician in Ashiravad Hospital, IIM Road, Lucknow for running a clinic and as per the report of the Chief Medical Officer Sitapur there was no registration of Dr. Ram Prasad Jaiswal Clinic and it was even stated that Dr. Ram Prasad Jaiswal was running the said clinic illegally without any prior sanction. He further submits that in support of his arguments that the appellant let out the property in dispute to Raj Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to bring on record any rental receipt/rent agreement executed between the appellant and the other co-accused. He further submits that even it is considered to be true that the appellant has let out the property in dispute to one Raj Kumar Pal, who is a Technician, then also Technician is also not a competent person to run a clinic, thus there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶11

After considering the rival submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, this Court finds that the appellant has studied upto Class VIII and has no knowledge in medical field and as per the report of the Chief Medical Officer Sitapur there was no registration of Dr. Ram Prasad Jaiswal Clinic and it was even stated that Dr. Ram Prasad Jaiswal was running the said clinic illegally without any prior sanction. The appellant has admitted this fact that he had given the alleged property on rent to one Raj Kumar Pal, but he was unable to bring on record any rental receipt/rent agreement executed between them, which shows active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶12

The order dated 03.11.2022 does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Thus, the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 does not need any interference by this Court.

¶13

In view of above, bail application of the appellant is rejected.

¶14

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed .

¶15

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Arvind

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

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

Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramkaran Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Aseem Shakil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Sumit Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Kishan and ORS.2 Vs State of U.P.

Chhotakkey @ Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another