AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J
This is the first application filed by the applicants u/S. 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.277/2025 registered at Police Station - Kailaras District - Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 319(2), 318(4) of BNS and Section 10 of M.P. Upcharya Grih and Rajapcharya Sambandhi Sthapana Adhiniyam, 1973 and Section 27 of the M.P. Rajya Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam.
As per prosecution case, on 22.07.2025 the Head Constable, Police Station-Kailaras received a written application of BMO. According to which, on 21.07.2025 CMHO received information that Sisodiya Mini Hospital is being run illegally where some illegal and suspicious practice of ultrasound and delivery are being done. Upon the said information, a three-members team was constituted for this purpose. The team, on investigation, raided the aforesaid hospital and the present applicant along with co-accused/husband of present applicant was running a mini hospital illegally. The present applicant was unable to show any degree in relation to run a hospital. The evidence of carrying ultrasound and delivery was also found. Accordingly, the offence was registered.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated. There was no victim who may have complained regarding illegality done in the hospital. The present applicant hold degree of Electropathy and Nursing. Even if the story of the prosecution is believed in toto, the offence under section 318(4) and 319 (2) is not made out against the present applicant. The applicant is not the main accused. During the alleged investigation, nothing incriminating was found that may lead to offence of practicing the aforesaid professions illegally. The aforesaid establishment is registered under M.P. Upcharya Grih and Rajapcharya Sambandhi Sthapana Adhiniyam, 1973. Applicant is the permanent residents of District - Agra(U.P.) and there is no possibility of her absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicants.
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the there is sufficient material available in the case diary to implicate the present applicant. Also, material seizure has been made from the aforesaid establishment.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
It is a case where a mini hospital was being run by the present applicant with co-accused. The applicant, during inspection, could not produce any valid document showing its valid registration to run a hospital. During investigation, out of five beds, three beds were found occupied by the patients which also shows that the hospital was being run full-fledgedly.
It is also worth mentioning that during inspection, delivery table, blooded cotton was also found which shows that in the aforesaid illegally run hospital, delivery of pregnant women was also being carried out without supervision of any trained and registered doctor. Material used in ultrasound like zel and mini portable printer were also found there. The tablets used in abortion like Mizaprastol and other equipment used in abortion and surgery were seized.
The aforesaid seizure of materials is sufficient to show that a full-fledged hospital was being run by the present applicant along with co-accused person. But, the license for running the aforesaid establishment could not be produced and also the applicant does not hold any degree to run and practice all these medical treatments. The offence is against the society and it public health which shows seriousness of the offence.
Therefore, after considering the nature of offence and its gravity and impact of the society and its public health, the contents of the case diary and also the role attributable to the present applicant, this court is of the considered opinion the requirement of custodial interrogation cannot be denied.
Accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.