Allowed

Dr Kamlesh Kumar Bharti @ Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023BAIL/3324/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3324 of 2023, the High Court allowed the release on bail of the accused alleging medical negligence in a minor's death. The court imposed standard conditions for appearing in court and refraining from tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two heavy local sureties, and specific conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Dr Kamlesh Kumar Bharti @ Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3324 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dr Kamlesh Kumar Bharti @ Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath,Krishna Dev Mishra,Sheetla Prasad Gound Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that as per F.I.R. version, the applicant is running a clinic and the son of the informant namely, Rakesh aged about 10 years was suffering from acne and pimples, due to which, he was taken to the clinic of the applicant, who gave some injections on account of which, his condition became deteriorated and he died. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither doctor nor is running any medical clinic. He next submits that the applicant is running a grocery shop due to problem of son of the informant, the applicant had suggested for best doctor but the informant himself injected his son on account of which, the son of the informant had died. He next submits that the informant has also given an affidavit before the concerned authority stating therein that under some mis-conception at the behest of the villagers, the instant prosecution has been launched. He also submits that the viscera report shows that there is no poison substance has been found, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-SA3 to the supplementaru affidavit. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the

¶7

allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 25.07.2022 having no criminal history.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Bharti @ Anil Kumar involved in Case Crime No.213 of 2018 under Sections 304, 420 I.P.C. and Section 15 (3) of Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶11

A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶13

witness.

¶14

C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected.

¶16

E. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 S.Ali

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr Kamlesh Kumar Bharti @ Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Kamlesh Kumar Bharti @ Anil Kumar 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

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sujan Sarkar Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Monish @ Mohnishkant Sharma Vs State of U.P.