Allowed

Vishal Roopnarayan Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Aug 2021ABA/1298/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay granted anticipatory bail to Dr. Vishal Roopnarayan Yadav in connection with Crime No. 143/2021. The applicant faced charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, alleging he tampered with evidence by issuing a death certificate citing cardiac arrest instead of alleged assault.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted. On arrest, applicant to be released on executing PR Bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties in like amount, subject to specific conditions of cooperation and non-interference.

Vishal Roopnarayan Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

15.A BA -1298-2021.doc

¶2

IN TH E H IG H C O U RT O F JU D IC A TU RE A T BO M BA Y C RIM IN A L A PPE LLA TE JU RIS D IC TIO N

¶3

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1298 / 2021

¶4

V ishal Roopnarayan Yadav.. A pplicant

¶5

Versus.

¶6

The S tate of Maharashtra.. Respondent

¶7

****

¶8

Mr. D eepak Pandey i/by Mr. Mithilesh Pandey, Advocate for A pplicant.
Mr. H .J. D edhia, A PP for S tate.

¶9

Mr. V .S . Lokare, P.I., D ahisar Police S tation.

¶10

****

¶11

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
 DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2021.

¶12

Per Court : -

¶13

H eard.

¶14

1. A pprehending the arrest in connection w ith C rim e N o.143/2021

¶15

registered w ith D ahisar Police S tation for the offences punishable

¶16

under S ections 302, 201 read w ith 34 of the Indian Penal C ode.
A pplicant seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶17

2. A pplicant is D octor by profession. M ahendra, husband of the

¶18

C omplainant died on 18th March, 2021. Initially, he w as removed to

¶19

1/4

¶20

15.A BA -1298-2021.doc

¶21

Krishna N ursing H ome at D ahisar. O n examination, he w as found
unconscious; his body w as cold; PR not recordable; no breathing, C PR
given. Relatives w ere advised to shift him to another H ospital.
Whereafter he w as removed to Karuna H ospital. H e w as examined by
D r. G upta. H e certified that;

¶22

“I examined w hole body of Mahendra, EC G done, N o C ardiac
Activity. Patient w as declared dead to their relatives. N o any injury/
marks found on the body of Mr. Mahendra. H e cllapsed w hile w alking
on road as told by their relatives.” May be for some reasons, D octor,
w ho examined him at Karuna H ospital did not issue the death
certificate or submitted a form no. 4-A (a medical certification of
cause of death). A s such, deceased w as taken to A pplicant – D r.
Yadav. A pplicant submitted form no. 4-A (a form prescribed under
Rule-7 certifying the cause of death). In the said form, A pplicant
reported, cause of death w as due to C ardiac shock.

¶23

3.Prosecution case is that A pplicant had submitted the form no.
4-A w ithout examining deceased to cause disappearance of
evidence, inasmuch as deceased Mahendra w as assaulted by fist
and kick blow s and therefore cause of death w as not due to cardiac
arrest. In the back drop of this fact, the Prosecution w ould allege that

¶24

2/4

¶25

15.A BA -1298-2021.doc

¶26

the A pplicant attempted to cause disappearance of the evidence and

¶27

as such committed an offence under Section 201 of IPC .

¶28

4.In consideration of the facts of the case and particularly the
clinical notes of Krishna N ursing H ome and death certificate issued
by D r. G upta attached to Karuna H ospital, prima-facie, I have no
reason to believe that the A pplicant caused the disappearance of the
evidence by certifying that Mahendra had suffered C ardiac arrest.
For the reasons stated above, in my view , the custodial interrogation
of the A pplicant, shall not further the prosecution case. A pplication is
granted, thus the order.

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on

¶31

bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, w ith one or
more sureties in the like amount;

¶32

(ii) The applicant shall furnish his residential address as w ell as
permanent address and contact details to the Investigating O fficer
forthw ith;

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall join investigation as and w hen called by the
Investigating O fficer;

¶34

3/4

¶35

15.A BA -1298-2021.doc

¶36

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper w ith the evidence or attempt
to influence or contact the complainant, w itnesses or any person

¶37

concerned w ith the case;

¶38

5. A pplication is allow ed and disposed of.

¶39

6. It is m ade clear that observations m ade hereinabove be construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of granting bail and the sam e shall not in any w ay influence the trial in other proceedings.

¶40

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶41

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD NAJEEB NAJEEB MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD QAYYUM QAYYUM Date: 2021.08.12 11:52:22 +0530

¶42

Najeeb...

¶43

4/4

Vishal Roopnarayan Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Roopnarayan Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Kapil Suresh Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akhtar Ali Yusuf Idrisi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naseem @ Muskan Abdul Wahid Shaikh @ Naseem Bano Vs the State of Maharashtra

Archana Anil Kumar Rao Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tejas Santosh Shinde @ Balya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shagaf Irfan Suse Vs the State of Maharashtra