B.Mohamed Ameen v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN B.Mohamed Ameen ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by The Station House Office, Villianur Police Station, Villianur, Puducherry - 605 110.

Crime Not Known of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, order to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.Not Known of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.N.Kathir For Respondent(s):

Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 336(3), 125, 319, 335, 340, 176, 177, 316 to 320 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with

Section 15 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and Sections 41 and 42 of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, in Crime No. Not known of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, while driving, suffered from severe cough and other ailments and, upon searching through Google, identified the petitioner's clinic. It is alleged that the petitioner had projected his qualification as D.M.B.S., and without possessing proper qualification, administered injections to the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner possesses a certificate for Diploma in Biochemic Medicine and Surgery issued by the Council of Biochemic Medicine, Bihar, bearing Certificate No.388 dated 30.12.1995. He further submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and custodial interrogation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry), appearing for the respondent, would submit that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification to prescribe allopathic medicine; however, he had administered

treatment to the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the certificate issued by the Council of Biochemic Medicine, Bihar. Even according to the complaint, the defacto complainant experienced pain after receiving the injection and thereafter suspected improper treatment. It is also seen that no serious ailment has been caused to the defacto complainant.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, particularly considering that the petitioner possesses a certificate in Biochemic Medicine, that no serious injury has been caused to the defacto complainant, and having regard to the fact that complaint is dated 13.03.2026, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this length of time. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from

the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner(s) fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner(s) shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner(s) in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner(s) released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner(s) thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act 30-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.

2.The Station House Office, Villianur Police Station, Villianur, Puducherry - 605 110.

3.The Public Prosecutor (Puducherry), High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 30-03-2026