Dr. Vivek Dashore Vs Arun Tamrakar and Another

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2025:CGHC:13440

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 329 of 2019

¶6

1 - Dr. Vivek Dashore S/o Rambharosh Dashore Aged About 32 Years R/o Sparsh Multi Specialty Hospital Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Arun Tamrakar S/o Late Bharat Lal Aged About 57 Years Occupation Medical Store, R/o Indira Market Motipara, Durg Police Station, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh,

¶10

2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶11

		... Respondents
For Petitioner	:	Mr. Deepak Kushwaha, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 For State	: :	Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

20/03/2025

¶15

The instant petition has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.1 by order dated 23/01/2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in case No.83/2019 whereby the bail has been granted to the Respondent No.1.

¶16

ASHUTOSHMISHRA Digitallysigned byASHUTOSHMISHRADate:2025.03.2212:59:41+0530

¶17

2 / 6

¶18

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner is DM (Cardiology) and he along with one Dr. Raghvendra Rai was working in Sparsh Multi Specialty Hospital Supela, Bhilai, District Durg. On 13.01.2019 one patient namely Kumari Bai (aged about 76 years) was admitted in the hospital. On preliminary investigation she was found to be patient of BP, Diabetes and heart problem. The relatives of the patient told that she was an old patient of heart problem. For satisfaction of relatives of the patient, Dr. Balakrishnan (outside doctor) was called to see the patient who also apprised the relatives of the patient as to serious condition of the patient. In the night (at about 9:00 p.m.) of 15.01.2019 the condition of patient suddenly deteriorated and she died despite all efforts made by the hospital. At about 10:00 p.m. the information of death of the patient was apprised to non-applicant Arun Tamrakar (son of deceased) and two other boys who are with him. Arun Tamrakar suddenly got angry, kicked the table and caught hold of collar of Dr. Rai, abused and assaulted him. Sensing the untoward incident, Dr.Vivek Dashore (petitioner) hide himself in the bathroom. Arun Tamrakar and his two companion took out petitioner from the bathroom, uttered obscene words threatened him and assaulted him whereby the petitioner received internal injury in his right knee.

¶19

Thereafter, Arun Tamrakar and his companion shouted and created scene in the hospital, they broke the table of the hospital and Arun Tamrkar slapped the lady guard (Smt. Sunita Sahu) damaged the stature of the hospital and also tried to break the door of ICU by kick. The incident has been recorded in the CCTV of the hospital. Arun Tamrakar and his

¶20

3 / 6

¶21

companion shouted in the hospital for a very long time which created fear in the mind of hospital staff. Police come to hospital and tried to control the situation. The petitioner lodged the report at the Police Station Supela on 16.01.2019. On the report of petitioner FIR No. 67/19 under Sections 294, 506, 323, 427/34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 of C.G. Medical Care Service Persons and Medical Service Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damage are loss to Property) Act, 2010 was registered. Arun Tamrkar filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail u/s438 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg and the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to non-applicant Arun Tamrakar vide order dated 23.01.2019. Hence this petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order of grant of anticipatory bail is against the settled principles, illegal, capricious and leading to injustice and caused miscarriage of justice. He would next contend that the act of non-applicant caused fear not only in the mind of petitioner, but also in the mind of entire medical fraternity who are serving the society. He would next contend that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the objection filed by the petitioner. He would lastly contend that the bail granted to the Respondent No.1 may be cancelled.

¶23

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/accused would support the impugned order and would submit that the order passed by the Sessions Judge requires no interference by this Court. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 placed

¶24

4 / 6

¶25

reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 179 & AIR 2009 SC 3173 and would submit that the instant petition may be dismissed.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

Perusal of the record and evidence would show that except Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010 which was earlier a bailable offence and which has been made a non-bailable offence by way of amendment, rest of the offences are bailable and the maximum sentence awarded to the Respondent No.1 is upto 3 years.

¶28

Supreme Court, in the matter of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , on the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail already granted, has held thus in para 4, which reads as under:-

¶29

“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealth with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bailonce granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no

¶30

5 / 6

¶31

longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.

¶32

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hazari Lal Das Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 held in para 7, which reads thus:-

¶33

“7. There is nothing on record that there has been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not appear from the record that the concession granted to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained.”

¶34

In the case of Abdul Basit Versus Md. Abdul Kadir Choudhury (2015) 1 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the accused persons misrepresented the fact for obtaining the order of bail, the High Court should not have entertained the prayer for cancellation of bail by making reviewing earlier order of grant of bail.

¶35

In the present cases the orders of grant of anticipatory bail have been challenged on the ground of it being perverse in law. Further on perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Judge, I have found that the Sessions Judge has considered the entire facts & circumstances of the case and considering the fact that all the offences are bailable in nature except one

¶36

6 / 6

¶37

offence and has granted the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Since the circumstances brought on record do not reflect that the accused person has misused the bail granted to him, I could not have determined the issue for cancellation of bail on the ground of it being perverse in law.

¶38

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, pleadings made in the petition and the aforementioned principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no good ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1/accused Arun Tamrakar which was granted in the year 2019 and till date about 06 years have passed.

¶39

Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

SD/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

ashu

Dr. Vivek Dashore v. Arun Tamrakar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vivek Dashore v. Arun Tamrakar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Basore @ Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Singh Sarthi @ Rahul Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagannath Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Kumar Shukla Vs D.N. Kashyap

Shashibhusan Paigore Vs Shri Dinesh Nag

Kanhaiya Lal Dalal Vs State of Chhattisgarh