AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raj Beer Singh, J
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case No.18845/2021 (State vs. Prashant Tyagi), Case Crime No.278/2019, under Sections 419/420 I.P.C. and Section 15(2) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Police Station Medical College, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. According to prosecution version, on 17.04.2019, the complainant/Deputy C.M.O. Meerut has inspected some laboratories and four labs including Drasti pathology were found unregistered and thereafter first information report of this case was lodged under Section 419/420 IPC and section 15(2) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Learned counsel submitted that after 14 months of lodging of the first informant report, the involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of complainant, wherein, he has inter-alia stated that he came to know that the owner of said Drasti pathology is accused/applicant Prashant Tyagi. It is submitted that there is no documentary evidence to connect the applicant with the said lab. The applicant has no connection with the said lab and in fact applicant is running a hospital in the name of Neelkanth Hospital & Trauma Center. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant- Prashant Tyagi in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below concerned with the following conditions :-
The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.