(Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.)
Ankita Kailash Khandelwal ___________________________ Petitioner;
v.
State of Maharashtra and Others ___________________ Respondent(s).
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3083-3085/2020, decided on August 11, 2020
(IA No. 69493/2020 – Exemption From Filing Affidavit IA No. 50143/2020 – Exemption From Filing Affidavit IA No. 68703/2020 – Permission to File Additional Documents/Facts/Annexures IA No. 50142/2020 – Permission to File Additional Documents/Facts/Annexures)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3083-3085/2020; IA No. 2/2019; IA No. 3/2019; IA No. 4/2019; IA No. 69493/2020; IA No. 50143/2020; IA No. 68703/2020; and IA No. 50142/2020
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate for the de facto complainant, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned advocate for the MCI and Mr. Sachin Patil, learned advocate for the State.
2. The petitioners were undergoing postgraduation degree course in Gynecology and Obstetrics and had completed two years out of three years’ course when they were taken in custody in connection with the crime in question. While allowing their applications for bail vide order dated 09.08.20191, the High Court, inter alia, imposed following condition:
“(iv) The appellants shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Agripada Police Station and more particularly, Topiwala National Medical College (B.Y.L. Nair Ch. Hospital).”
3. Thereafter, Interim Application No. 2/2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 911/2019 was preferred by the petitioners seeking relaxation of the aforesaid condition. The High Court summoned and heard Dr. Ganesh Shinde, Head of the Department, Gynecology, B.Y.L. Nair Charitable Hospital, Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation.
4. One of the issues which arose for consideration was if the accused could not be allowed to come back to the institution to continue their course of study, whether they could be allowed migration to any other institution in Mumbai.
5. The High Court observed that in terms of the Regulations of the Maharashtra Medical Council of India, no such migration to any other college for postgraduation course was permissible. After considering rival submissions, the High Court did not deem it appropriate to relax the condition.
6. While issuing notice, this Court recorded2 the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and called for response from the Medical Council of India (“MCI” for short). Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned advocate for MCI submitted that migration would not be permissible and two instances adverted to by the petitioners, namely, of (i) College at Jhajjar, Haryana and (ii) ESI-PGIMSR College, Andheri at Mumbai were in the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. He submitted that in the first case, the College itself was closed and therefore the entire batch of the students was accommodated in different colleges while in the second case there was a fire at the institution and therefore the students were temporarily shifted to another institution.
7. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the issue of migration was completely unrelated to the matter concerning bail and the conditions imposed at the stage of grant of bail; that in case the petitioners were denied migration, the remedy was in taking appropriate proceedings in a manner known to law and that since the Regulations were very clear that no migration would be permissible, the Court ought not to pass any orders on the plea of migration.
8. Our attention was also invited to the Communication dated 25.10.2019 which was premised on the condition imposed by the High Court in its order dated 09.08.20191.
9. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to add B.Y.L. Nair Charitable Hospital, through its Director as one of the respondents to this petition. The amended cause title be filed within two days from today.
10. Let notice be issued to the newly added respondent, returnable on 31.08.2020. Dasti in addition.
11. We understand that statements of more than 250 witnesses were recorded by the investigating machinery under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. The State shall apprise the Court on the next occasion about the status and stage of trial. The State shall also inform the Court whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, migration of the petitioners could be permitted to any of the hospitals of the State or to those attached to Mumbai Municipal Corporation or to any Nursing Centres of the hospitals concerned.
———
1 Hema Suresh Ahuja v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 911 of 2019, decided on 9-8-2019 (Bom)
2 Ankita Kailash Khandelwal v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Cri) Diary No. 10713 of 2020, order dated 9-7-2020 (SC)
