Regular bail petition by a quack accused in a death case (Sections 304(ii), 201, 34 IPC; NMC Act) was dismissed. Cause of death was asphyxia; no poison detected; trial pending with only 6 of 23 witnesses examined. Court declined bail citing unregistered medical practice and pending scientific evidence.
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.
CRM-M No.20042 of 2024 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
202
CRM-M No.20042 of 2024 (O&M) Reserved on: 31.07.2024 Pronounced on: 09.08.2024
Faheem @ Faim @ Mohammad Faheem
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.09 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRM-M No.20042 of 2024 (O&M)
2
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.09 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRM-M No.20042 of 2024 (O&M)
3
passages’ and Asphyxia is a mode of death i.e. when a person stops breathing. He further submits that as per the FSL report dated 29.03.2023, no common poison/ethyl alcohol has been detected in the body of deceased. He submits that the deceased seems to have died on account of food particles/vomit particles, which struck in his throat/veins, which would result in destructing the breathing passage of his body and he succumbed to death and no injury whatsoever has been found on the body of deceased.
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.09 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRM-M No.20042 of 2024 (O&M)
4
He further submits that the material witnesses i.e. PW-2 Ram Avtar and PW-3 Purshottam, have not supported the case of the prosecution and have already been declared hostile. He further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case; investigation in the present case is complete as challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 06 PWs have been examined so far and the next date fixed before the Sessions Court is 07.08.2024 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars.
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.09 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRM-M No.20042 of 2024 (O&M)
5
where he had been injected Monocef injunction 500 mg by the petitioner and later on he succumbed to death. After investigation by the police, an FIR was registered against him under sections 304 PartII, 201, 34 IPC (offence punishable under section 34 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 was added later on). As per post mortem report, the cause of death of deceased Leeladhar has been found as Asphyxia-due to blockage of respiratory passages. No common poison/ethyl alcohol has been detected in the body of deceased. This Court is not in a position to say anything at this stage as the Court lacks the necessary medical or technical expertise to interpret medical evidence, procedures or treatments. The role of the petitioner will be evaluated on the basis of scientific/medicinal evidence brought up by the prosecution agency during the trial of the case. As of now, it has come in the investigation that the petitioner, who is only accused in present FIR against whom charge-sheet has been filed, was practicing as a Doctor in his clinic without possessing any professional degree as required under the law and in order to destroy the evidence had thrown the dead body of deceased on the road near the Paying Guest due to the reason that the petitioner is a quack. It is to be seen by the trial court as to whether the petitioner was a registered medical practitioner or not and running his clinic or not, by way of evidence to be adduced before the trial Court. Concededly, a person has lost his life. Unregistered medical practitioners pose a significant threat to public health in India. Despite the existence of laws and regulations, many individuals
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.09 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRM-M No.20042 of 2024 (O&M)
6
practice medicine without proper qualifications or registration, putting patient's lives at risk and consequence thereof, misdiagnosis and improper treatment leading to worsening of patient conditions. They are a menace to public health in India. A person who committed offence under section 304 Part-ll IPC, is liable to be awarded imprisonment for upto ten years and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner is only 1 year 9 months and 29 days as of now. No doubt, prosecution witnesses namely Puroshottom and Ram Avtar have not supported the case of the prosecution but at the same time, this fact cannot be lost sight of that scientific/medicinal evidence is yet to be adduced by the investigation agency to substantiate its case for knowing the truth/cause of death, before the trial Court. Trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence and out of 23 prosecution witnesses, 06 witnesses have been examined.
(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE
09.08.2024 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.09 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to a petitioner accused of causing death by administering an injection without medical qualifications.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Faheem @ Faim @ Mohammad Faheem
State of Haryana
Namit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
