IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Friday, the Tenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.12902 & 12763 of 2022

G.PARIMALAM

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED

IN CRL.O.P.No.12902/2022 ]

SATHIK

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED

IN CRL.O.P.No.12763/2022 ]

Vs

THE STATE REP BY

[ RESPONDENT

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

IN BOTH PETITIONS ]

VEPPUR POLICE STATION,

CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.411 OF 2022)

For Petitioner : M/S.E.BALAMURUGAN Advocate

[IN BOTH PETITIONS]

For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional public Prosecutor

[IN BOTH PETITIONS]

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the

respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 419,

420, 304(2) of IPC read with Section 15(3) Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 in Crime No.411 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant

who is the Medical Officer, Veppur, has lodged the complaint stating

that on 07.05.2022, Dr.Sathiyaseelan, who was running Thara Medical,

Veppur, has given wrong treatment to the daughter of the defacto

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

complainant who is aged about 5 years due to which, she died. The

Regional Medical Officer has stated that the Doctor was a fake Doctor

and requested to verify the authenticity of the documents obtained

from the owner of Thara Medical during the inspection by the Chief

Medical Officer, Veppur, and to take action against the said Doctor

who ran the clinic without CEA (Clinical Establishment Act)

Registration.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as far

as the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12902 of 2022 is concerned, he is the

owner of the premises in which the said Doctor ran the clinic and he

is nothing to do with the offence committed by the said Doctor. The

said Doctor had shown the Registration Certificate and believing his

words, he was allowed to run the clinic. As far as the petitioner in

Crl.O.P.No.12763 of 2022, he is running the medical shop after

completing B.Pharm in the year 1997 and got valid license from the

Medical Board and he is nothing to do with the person who treated the

victim and that he had given the medicines on the basis of the

Doctor's prescription. Even according to the prosecution, the Doctor

who was practicing Alopathy Medicine, without any proper

qualification has administered the injection on the victim. Hence,

he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

the respondent police.

5. A perusal of the FIR shows that the FIR has been registered

against the person who treated the victim. Subsequently, the

petitioners who permitted the said Doctor to run the clinic in their

premises and the owner of the medical shop have been implicated as

accused. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,

the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in

this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail

to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on

bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period

of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready,

before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Virudhachalam, on condition

that the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a

like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police

officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned

Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anti