Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail to quack doctor accused of causing death by wrong treatment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied bail to a quack doctor who is accused of having caused death of a man in 2022 by giving him wrong treatment [Mohammad Faheem v. State of Haryana]..Justice Namit Kumar said the investigation has revealed that the accused was practicing as a doctor in his clinic without any professional degree as required under the law.The Court further noted that in order to destroy the evidence, the accused had thrown the victim's dead body on the road near a paying guest accommodation."It is to be seen by the trial court as to whether the petitioner was a registered medical practitioner or not and running his clinic or not, by way of evidence to be adduced before the trial Court. Concededly, a person has lost his life," the Court said..Notably, the Court also observed that unregistered medical practitioners pose a significant threat to public health in India."Despite the existence of laws and regulations, many individuals practice medicine without proper qualifications or registration, putting patient's lives at risk and consequence thereof, misdiagnosis and improper treatment leading to worsening of patient conditions. They are a menace to public health in India", it added. .Faheem, the accused, was allegedly running a medical clinic at Aliyar village in Manesar, Gurugram. The complainant Ram Avatar alleged that Faheem's wrongful treatment had led to the death of his nephew Leeladhar. Avatar alleged that he had seen a CCTV footage at the paying guest facility where his nephew was residing and it revealed that his nephew had fever and was getting himself treated from Faheem. He further alleged that his nephew had visited Faheem just a day before he had received information about his death.Further, Avatar claimed that after the death of Leeladhar, Faheem along with his friend Shubham had kept the dead body of Leeladhar on the road near his paying guest facility..However, Faheem's counsel argued that as per the post mortem report, Leeladhar had died a natural death due to Axphysia i.e. breathlessness. He submitted that Faheem had administered a Monosef injection to the victim, which is only an anti-biotic.It was further submitted that there was neither intention (mens rea) nor ‘knowledge’ on the part of accused that his act would result or likely to cause death of the patient. The counsel also submitted that even if the allegations are taken as it is, still no offence under Section 304(ii) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), was made out against the accused since having a guilty mind and an overt act on his part would be an essential ingredient to constitute the offence and the same was absent in the present case.It was also contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year and 9 months and that two of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case. .The Court said it was not in a position to say anything at this stage as it lacks the necessary medical or technical expertise to interpret medical evidence, procedures or treatments. Further, it noted that a person who has committed offence under Section 304 (II) of the IPC, is liable to be awarded imprisonment for up to ten years."No doubt, prosecution witnesses namely Puroshottom and Ram Avtar have not supported the case of the prosecution but at the same time, this fact cannot be lost sight of that scientific/medicinal evidence is yet to be adduced by the investigation agency to substantiate its case for knowing the truth/cause of death, before the trial Court," said the Court as it dismissed the plea..Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai and advocate Arnav Ghai appeared for the petitioner.Deputy Advocate General Saurabh Mohunta represented the State of Haryana. .[Read Order]