An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed by a doctor accused of unlicensed practice and cheating. The High Court rejected the application in view of strong prima facie allegations.
Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M. Cr. C. (A) No. 1411 of 2016
Santosh Kumar Shrivastav (Dr. Santosh Kumar Shrivastav) S/o late Shri Sambhu Lal Shrivastav, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Bawankera, Thana Patewa, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Thana Patewa, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
| For Applicant | : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Respondent State | : Shri Ashish Surana, Panel Lawyer |
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
03/05/2017
The present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.224/2016 registered at P.S. Patewa, District Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 4 (A) & 12 (2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Section 1 of the Chhattisgarh State Upacharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaya Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010, Section 18, 22, 23 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic Science Adhiniyam, 1987 and Section 420 of IPC.
The allegation against the applicant is that he is neither medically qualified nor has he proper licence from the competent statutory authority to perform the pre-natal diagnosis nor has he proper licence to prescribe
treatment except under Homeopathic system of medical practice. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the prosecution, during the course of investigation, has collected large amount of documents in respect of the treatments that have been rendered to various persons from the clinic of the applicant and the prescriptions prescribed by the applicant. Thus, prima facie, there appears to be some strong allegations against the applicant dis-entitling him the benefit under Section 438 of CrPC.
Accordingly, the instant application filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C. stands rejected.
Sd/-
Bhola
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.,
Whether the prima facie strength of allegations against the applicant disentitles him from anticipatory bail.
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Santosh Kumar Shrivastav
State of Chhattisgarh
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
