Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Petitioner had approached High court of Tripura with an application under section 438 of the Crpc to grant anticipatory bail in an FIR filed under Section 323|353|504|34 of IPC and section 3(2) of Epidemic Diseases Amendment, Act 2020 read with Section 3 of Tripura Medicare service persons and medicare service Institution (Prevention of Violence & damage Property) Act, 2013.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint has been lodged by the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura, stating inter alia that one Dr. Sangita Chakraborty, who was discharging her duties as in charge of distribution of COVID-19 patients in the two centers on 24.07.2020, five post-delivery mothers along with their newborn babies, who were tested COVID-19 positive, were sent to the COVID Care Centre.
It is further stated that when the patients and the accompanying health staff reached the center, some of the previously admitted older inmate patients started protesting indiscriminately.
When the situation had worsened, Dr. Chakraborty s, tried to convince the unruly protestors and repeatedly insisted to behave responsibly. However, the protestors furiously reciprocated and started abusing Doctor in utterly filthy languages and also threw some sexually colored remarks. Some of the protestors even went further and threatened her and her family with dire consequences once they are out of their quarantine.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been transpired in the complaint itself, as such, there is no accusation against him, and on this ground alone, the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the State has submitted mere apprehension of arrest cannot be the ground to grant anticipatory bail as provided under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further submitted that he instructed the concerned authorities to produce the case diary but he was informed by the investigating officer that the case dairy was yet to be prepared, and he needs some time to produce the case dairy
Taking note of aforestated contentions Justice Arindam Lodh gave consideration to all the relevant provision of laws involved to decide the instant bail application in the case.
The court stated a serious complaint against some of the patients, who had made doctors and made the other staff vulnerable to the infection which will deprive many patients of their valuable service. They created serious obstacles in treating the COVID patients
“This kind of acts and commission is not only detrimental to the sentiment, safety, and security of the Doctors, the “frontline warriors” of the nation but also detrimental to the interest of the entire society of our nation as well as of this state. It is not at all tolerable and should not be tolerated for a single moment, and the real offenders are to be booked and punished in accordance with law”
Further Court does not find any specific accusation against the petitioner. However, both the learned counsel appearing for the parties have apprehended his implication in connection with the offense
Court dictated an order to the Investigating Officer to record the confessional statement of the victim Dr. Sangita Chakraborty and her supporting staff under Section 164(5) of the Cr. P.C. within 24 hours, however, at the convenience of the Doctor and her other associates.
The Investigating Officer is further directed to arrange for T.I. parade, if necessary, to identify the real offenders.
Further respondent is requested to produce the case diary before the next hearing by 5 august 2020 to find out the reasonable apprehension and accusation, if any, against the petitioner.
The court stated doctors are frontline of the battle against COVID 19 pandemic, they are “first-line defense of the country”
86540
103860
630
114
59824