Uma Maheshwari v. The State Rep By Its,

Crl.O.P.No.26001 of 2022 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J., The petitioners, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 417, 420, 328 IPC and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in Crime No.91 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner without proper qualification administered medicine to the pregnant lady/victim, due to which she was admitted in the hospital in emergency situation. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person, a false complaint has been given against him. He would submit that the provisions stated by the respondent police will not be made out and attracted as against the petitioner. He would pray for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that without prescribed qualification the petitioner practised allopathy medicine and given treatment to the pregnant lady and administered certain medicines and she fell sick and she was admitted in the hospital in a very critical situation. He would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J, tsh submit that the petitioner has one previous case of similar nature, he is a fake Doctor, who has been running a dispensary in the guise of a qualified allopathy Doctor. He would submit that the case is under investigation. Hence, he oppose for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration, the fact that the petitioner is having one previous case and running dispensary in the name of a qualified Doctor, the petitioner is a habitual offendar who has been repeatedly involving in offences of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. 24.11.2022 tsh Crl.O.P.No.26001 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2