TEAM CODE: TC-41

THE 10TH INTRA BAIL ARGUMENT COMPETITION, 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRIMINAL APPEAL JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.________ OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. P. K. GUPTA ……ACCUSED
#VERSUS#
STATE …. RESPONDENT
FIR NO: 330/2021
U/S: 304A/325/506/34 IPC AND 75 J.J. ACT
PS: VIVEK VIHAR
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL U/S 438 R/W SECTION
482 OF THE Cr.P.C. FOR AND ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT-Dr. P.K. GUPTA
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the applicant is a peace loving and law-abiding citizen of this country and a
permanent resident of Delhi and has reasonable apprehension of being roped in a
cognizable offence and implicated as an accused in the instant FIR lodged in PS: Vivek
Vihar, FIR no. 330/2021, U/S 304A/325/506/34 IPC and 75 of Juvenile Justice Act.

2. That the applicant is a well-known practising doctor who has cured several infants and a
well-known child specialist with no criminal antecedents. That the applicant is known
to work for the poor, deprived, and under-privileged people through his hospital.

3. That the facts of the FIR lie in a very narrow compass. It has been alleged in the FIR
that admittedly the son of the complainant was undergoing treatment in a hospital at
Ghaziabad and as per the version of the complainant, since the Ghaziabad hospital was
not able to cater to and cure his son, he was referred to Delhi, on 18.07.2021. The FIR
further narrates that the complainant of his own approached the Child Care Centre,
Vivek Vihar, Shahdara, New Delhi, wherein the applicant was also working as an
Doctor.

4. That the FIR further alleges that one lady staff named Rumaiya, was seen assaulting
the complainant’s child on the intervening night of 23.07.2021 and 24.07.2021. It was
further alleged that the applicant was also standing nearby the nurse, allegedly when
 this incident took place. The complainant alleges that allegedly when he approached the
Applicant about the incident, he was allegedly threatened by the Applicant with dire
consequence of killing his baby, if the complainant dared to speak anything of the
incident. It was further reported in the FIR that the child was discharged on 27.07.2021,
but unfortunately on 28.07.2021 the child was reported to be dead, allegedly because of
the negligence of the hospital and the concerned doctor.

5. It is submitted with great respect that the applicant is not involved in the present case. It
is further submitted that the present FIR is a product of the fertile mind of the
complainant Mr Praveen. The present case is an aftermath of a well calculated strategy
deployed by the complainant to somehow harass the applicant and drag out the money
from him.

6. That on 18.07.2021, the complainant admitted his new-born baby namely Master
Ahaan, at Child Care Hospital, Vivek Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi, for further treatment as
the child was in terrible and critical condition due to acute infection. That during the
treatment on 24.07.2021, the complainant was informed by the Hospital that his baby’s
hand had been injured. It is further submitted that it is the applicant, who had directed
for conducting of an inquiry to the said incident, which was conducted by the hospital
on the basis of CCTV footage and had the applicant any role, he would not have
directed for any enquiry.

7. The applicant-doctor came to learn from the CCTV footage provided by the Hospital
that Rumaiya (lady staff at the hospital) had alleged assaulted the baby in the
intervening night on 23.07.2021 and 24.07.2021, which may have led to fracture on the
hand of the baby. It is submitted that the applicant doctor has no role whatsoever in the
instant FIR, as admittedly it is the lady staff, who had assaulted the baby and not the
applicant.

8. The further allegation in the FIR that the applicant doctor has threatened the
complainant is also absolutely fallacious, in as much as it is the applicant doctor, who
had directed for enquiry in the matter to the alleged assault. It is further submitted that
the applicant-doctor never threatened the complainant, in fact the complainant himself
only threatened the doctor as he wanted to draw money from the applicant doctor & the
Hospital. It is further submitted that the baby was admitted in the Child Care Centre in a
very critical condition, which was very much explained to the complainant. It was the
complainant, who insisted for treatment in the child care and the applicant as a doctor
took all reasonable steps in good faith to improve the conditions of the baby. The
fracture caused at the child care was not fatal, as the applicant-doctor found that
because of the acute infection and swelling in the whole body and also due to the
deficiency of calcium, the condition of the child deteriorated. The Applicant relies on
the case of “Jacob Mathews Vs State of Punjab AIR 2005 SC 3180” and “Martin F. D’
Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq AIR 2009 SC 2049”.
9. That the complainant made a stir in the hospital and accused the hospital for the alleged
incident. That the hospital staff tried explaining the complainant that the said injury
might have occurred before the child’s admission to the aforesaid hospital. That the said
fracture could not be detected at the time of admission because the child’s whole body
was swollen due to the infection. It is further submitted that the complainant neither
paid heed to the explanation provided by the hospital staff nor did he listen to anyone. It
is further submitted that the complainant started accusing the entire hospital staff and
also created a nuisance in the hospital premises.

10. It is submitted that while the infection was receding because of the treatment of the
baby, the complainant insisted for discharge against medical advice and as per law, the
hospital was obliged to discharge the baby. Subsequently, post-discharge from the
hospital, the complainant did not take appropriate care of the child, which resulted in
his death.

11. That soon after the registration of the aforesaid FIR, a Medico-Legal case (M.L.C) was
prepared, which suggested “left-arm shown fracture.” on 28.07.2021, leading to the
arrest of the said nurse namely Rumaiya in the instant case.

12. The applicant has no role in the present FIR. The applicant is ready and willing to assist
in the investigation and shall always make himself available to the custody of this
Hon’ble Court at any point of time as and when directed. That the evidence in the
present case is documentary and the petitioner undertakes to not tamper with the
medical evidence as per record. That the complete medical records has already been
provided to the investigating officer’s, which also bears the handwritten notes of the
treating doctor, namely Dr. Atul and Dr. P.K. Gupta, Orthopaedical and the Applicant.

13. It is humbly submitted that the Applicant cannot be roped in the present case on the
principle of vicarious liability. That there is no evidence against the Applicant which
suggest aiding, instigating, or engaging in the said commission of the alleged offence.
That no useful purpose would be served in putting the applicant in Jain as there is no
requirement of custodial interrogation in the present case.

14. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has a clean record. That the petitioner has
never been convicted in the past in any case. That under any circumstances it cannot be
construed that the Petitioner has a lousy record which suggests that he is likely to
commit severe or similar offences while on bail.

15. It is submitted that the Petitioner has deep roots in society, and that there is no chance of
the Petitioner running away from the course of justice or tampering with evidence.

PRAYER
In view of the above submissions and in the interest of justice it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the Applicant Anticipatory bail
in the event of his arrest in FIR no. 330/2021, U/S: 304A/325/506/34 IPC and 75
Juvenile Justice Act, P.S.- Vivek Vihar, New Delhi.
And pass any other order or such further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE HUMBLE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
APPLICANT/ACCUSED