Partly allowed

Ashok Yoginath Bangar v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2009APPLN/1127/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed proceedings under the SC/ST Act and Protection of Civil Rights Act regarding a medical practitioner who treated a deceased patient without prior knowledge of the patient's caste and without reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Provisions under Atrocities Act and Protection of Civil Rights Act quashed to extent of present applicant; penal provisions under IPC allowed to continue.

Ashok Yoginath Bangar Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1127/2009.

¶4

Dr.Ashok s/o Yoginath Bangar

¶5

- APPLICANT

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

1)The State of Maharashtra
and Anr.- RESPONDENTS

¶8

*****

¶9

Mr.SS Thombre, Advocate for Applicant;
Mr.KM Suryawanshi,APP for State.

¶10

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE : 29th August,2009.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

.Heard Mr.Thombre learned Counsel for the
accused/applicant.

¶13

2)By order dated 10th June, 2009, Rule is
issued. The proceedings to the extent of present
applicant/accused in relation to offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
and under Section 7(1)(3) of the Protection of
Civil Rights Act, in terms of prayer clauses (D)
and (E), are stayed.

¶14

3)At this stage, the learned Counsel, on
instructions, seeks withdrawal of the Criminal
Application in so far as it relates to penal

¶15

¶16

provisions under Sections 302, 504, 506, 202 r/w
34 of IPC, to agitate the same before the learned
Sessions Judge.

¶17

4)Prima facie the factual matrix indicate
theaccused/applicant,beingaMedical
Practitioner, provided his services to the
injured - Amol, who was brought to him. He was
not keeping well having severe abdominal pains.
The accused/applicant gave treatment to him,
however, said Amol succumbed to the internal
injuries, for which, already a prosecution is
initiated against the suspects, vide Crime No.I-
28/2009. The accused herein was not knowing caste
of said Amol at the material time when he treated
him. He, in all the situations probably thought
that it was the minor incident of treating a
patient and did not intimate the Police. Even if
one accepts, it will be infraction of the duty
cast on a Medical Practitioner, to intimate the
police. However, there will not be any element
of infraction of Section 3(1)(x) of the
Atrocities Act. or of the Protection of Civil
Rights Act.

¶18

5)As stated earlier, the accused has not
abused in any mode, manner to the victim or any
of the person least in public view. The
prosecution against the applicant - Dr. Ashok
Yoginath Bangar to the extent of offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and under

¶19

¶20

Section 7(1)(3) of the Protection of Civil Rights
Act, in Crime No. I-28/09, registered at Jamkhed
Police station, will not survive, it is
accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶21

6)It is clarified, the police concerned
are at liberty to proceed with penal provisions
as indicated herein above and the provisions
under the Atrocities Act against the other
accused, if there is such material.

¶22

7)Rule is partly made absolute in above
terms.
8)By virtue of order dated 10th June,
2009, the accused enjoyed pre-arrest bail in the
sum of Rs.5,000/-, the same to continue till
filing of charge sheet.

¶23

( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE

¶24

bdv/cran1127.09/fldr.1.9

Ashok Yoginath Bangar v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Yoginath Bangar v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Manohar Deochand Koli Vs 1. the State of Mah and Anr.

Ranjitsingh Ambarsingh Rajput and Ors. Vs Chotusingh Onkarsingh Rajput

Umesh Murlidhar Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Kalpesh Bhanudas Vaishnv and Ors. Vs Dilipsinha Narayanrao Patil and Ors.

Mrs.Rekha Babasaheb Gadve Vs Dr.Babasaheb Nana Gadve

Talewar Khan Sher Khan and Ors. Vs Ilahi Khan Yousus Khan and Ors.