Allowed

Shrihari Limbaji Lahane v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC1 Oct 2012APPLN/3715/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal application for bail in offenses relating to illegal female foetüs termination and medical termination of pregnancy. The court allowed bail, distinguishing the applicant's limited role of post-operative care from the main accused's role in causing termination, given the gift deed and the principal accused's arrest.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for the applicant in the mentioned crimes upon furnishing R. Bond of Rs. 20,000 and surety in the like amount, subject to territorial jurisdiction conditions.

Shrihari Limbaji Lahane Vs the State of Mah — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.3684 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3684 OF 2012

¶5

WITH -

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3715 OF 2012

¶7

Dr.Shrihari Limbaji Lahane, Age 57 years, Occu.Medical Practitioner, R/o Jirewadi, Taluka and District Beed

¶8

..Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Beed City Police Station, Beed Taluka and District Beed

¶11

..Respondent

¶12

Mr R.G.Hange, Advocate for applicant

¶13

Mr D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for respondent in Criminal Appln.No.3684/2012 Mr P.N.Mulay, A.P.P. for respondent in Cri.Appln.No.3715/2012

¶14

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶15

DATE : 1st October 2012

¶16

PER COURT

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

The present applicant, who is arrested in Crime No. 109/2012, registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Taluka and District Beed, for the offences punishable under Section 304, 312, 315, 316, 318, 201 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4, 5, 6, 22, 23 and 25 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of sex Selection) Act, 1994 and under

¶19

Cri.Appln.No.3684 of 2012

¶20

¶21

Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and also in Crime No.66/2012 registered at City Police Station, Beed, Taluka and District Beed on the similar charges, i.e. for the offence punishable under Section 304, 312, 315, 316, 318, 201 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4, 5, 6, 22, 23, and 25 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of sex Selection) Act, 1994 with Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, is praying for his release on bail.

¶22

The applicant is arrested on 19.6.2011 for the offence in Criminal Application No.3684 of 2012 and in Criminal Application No.3715 of 2012 he was arrested on 6.6.2012. The allegations are that the present applicant. being the partner of the hospital, where the illegal termination of pregnancy in order to cause female foetus was carried has given some post operative treatment. The first information report was filed against an unknown person upon finding of the foetus in the river. During investigation, it was found that the termination was caused by Dr.Sanap, who runs the Sanap Hospital as well as Vithai Hospital in Jirewadi.

¶23

The allegations are that the present applicant is partner of the said hospital and he has given post operative treatment to

¶24

Cri.Appln.No.3684 of 2012

¶25

¶26

the ladies whose female foetus were found in the river.

¶27

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor brought to my notice the I.P.D. papers of Yashoda Jaybhay, which according to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would show that the present applicant has given treatment to said Yashoda Jaybhay, whose pregnancy was terminated.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that accused Dr.Sanap, who has caused the termination of pregnancy was arrested on 1.6.2012. Thereafter there was nobody to look after the various patients admitted in the hospital. Said Dr.Sanap is the son-in-law of the applicant to whom the hospital was gifted by the applicant vide registered gift deed dated 27.10.2006. The photocopy of the registered gift deed is filed on record. In the circumstances, it is submitted that Dr.Sanap was already arrested and as there was nobody to look after all the patients including Yashoda Jaybhai, post operative treatment was given by the applicant and, therefore, there is no prima facie material to show that the present applicant is involved in illegal medical termination of the female foetus.

¶29

The statement of Yashoda Jaybhay that may be exculpatory so far as her role in getting caused the termination of pregnancy

¶30

¶31

Cri.Appln.No.3684 of 2012

¶32

is concerned, it would, however, show that Dr.Sanap was instrumental in causing the termination of pregnancy and thereafter on the date of recording of her statement on 3^rd June 2012, she was very well in the hospital and her statement was recorded there, i.e. after the arrest of Dr.Sanap.

¶33

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, however, opposed the application. He submitted that serious offence of causing of female foetus is caused. The applicant was revealed to be one of the partners. The medical papers of Yashoda Jaybhay show that the present applicant has given treatment to her. In the circumstances, the application may not be allowed.

¶34

It is to be noted that the charge sheet is already filed. The registered gift deed would show that the applicant had already gifted the hospital to his son-in-law i.e. Dr.Sanap, main accused, in the year 2006. The statement of Yashoda Jaybhay was recorded in the hospital on 3^rd June 2012, which shows that after arrest of main accused Dr.Sanap, she continued in the hospital and, therefore, naturally post operative treatment might have been given by the present applicant.

¶35

Cri.Appln.No.3684 of 2012

¶36

¶37

Therefore, without making any observations on merit and as the investigation is complete and the role assigned by the present applicant can be distinguished with the role assigned to the principal accused, in my view, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. Hence, the following order.

¶38

The applications are allowed. The applicant be released in Crime No.109/2012, registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Taluka and District Beed, for the offences punishable under Section 304, 312, 315, 316, 318, 201 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4, 5, 6, 22, 23 and 25 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of sex Selection) Act, 1994 and under Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and also in Crime No.66/2012 registered at City Police Station, Beed, Taluka and District Beed for the offences punishable under Section 304, 312, 315, 316, 318, 201 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4, 5, 6, 22, 23, and 25 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of sex Selection) Act, 1994 with Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, upon his furnishing P.R. Bond in the amount of Rs.20,000/- in each of the crime and also upon furnishing surety in the like amount.

¶39

Cri.Appln.No.3684 of 2012

¶40

¶41

The applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Beed District without permission from the Court, where the charge sheet is filed.

¶42

( M.T. JOSHI, J. )

¶43

(vvr/3684.12criappln)

Shrihari Limbaji Lahane v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrihari Limbaji Lahane v. the State of Mah

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

Rahul Eknaht Khandagale Vs State of Mah

Bhimrao Sarbad Shirsath Vs the State of Mah

Sumanbai Manoj Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Dr. Shrihari Limbaji Lahane Vs the State of Mah

Narendra Bhaskarrao Patil Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Radhabai Ambadas Sonawane Vs Kailas Narayan Sonawane and Anr.