Palok Basu, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a Government Servant and was posted as Lady Medical Officer in the Hospital where the informant's sister was admitted for delivery case. It is alleged that after she gave birth to a mala child excessive blood flowed and she was yet made to go walking to the operation theatre for some proposed treatment or operation Inspite of the repeated complaints by the informant no steps were taken by the lady doctor (petitioner Smt. Sushila Pant). It was alleged in the end of the FIR that a sum of Rs. 500/- was demanded from the informant for treatment on these facts, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither a case under section 304-A, IPC is made out, nor provision of section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be attracted in this case.
(2.) SUFFICE it to say for the time being that the allegations made in FIR prima facie indicate making out the offences. Therefore, at the stage of examining the allegations in the FIR the truth or otherwise of the allegations made therein shall not be examined by the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (See the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, 1982 AIR SC 949. case of State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharama 1991 AIR SC 1260, and case of State of Haryana v, Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR SC 604. Therefore, this is not a fit case for quashing the FIR or the investigation therein in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was then vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case a direction be issued to the court below concerned that the hearing of the bait application moved by the petitioner should be done on that very date on which it is moved. The conflict of two Division Bench decisions, one delivered by Hon'ble S. K. Mookerji, J. with whom Hon'ble A. N. Gupta-J agreed, and the other by the Lucknow Bench of our Court delivered by Hon'ble J. K. Mathur, J, with whom Hon'ble K. L. Sharma agreed, has been noticed in the two writ petitions. It has been rightly argued by Sri G. S. Chaturvedi that -this writ petition may also be directed to be connected with those two writ petitions, namely Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. of 1992, Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U. P. and others and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. of 1993. Smt. Bhagwan Devi and others v. State of U. P. and others, enabling the larger Benoh to consider the case of the petitioner, a Government Servannt, on the question as to whether in the light of Article 21 read with clause 49-A CCA Rules which lay down that a government servant put into custody beyond 48 hours is likely to be suspended, this Court will be justified in issuing a direction to the court below concerned to bear and decide the bail application of a government servant on that very date on which it is moved by the said government servant. In this view of the matter, the argument of Sri G. S. Chaturvedi is that in such cases where technically offences are disclosed, the citizens' cases have to be viewed more prammatically as strictly legal interpretation likely to interfere with the right of employment, should also be examined. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is hereby directed. that this writ petition no. 33799 of 1992. Smt. Sushila Pant v. Station House Officer, Police Station Srinagar. Pauri Garhwal, may also be connected with the aforesaid two writ petitions i. e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. of 1992, Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U. P. and others, and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. of 1993, Smt. Bhagwan Devi and others v. State of U. P. and others.
(3.) THE application for amendment moved today in the present writ petition is allowed. THE prayer made in the writ petition are rejected. THE only question, whether the petitioner's bail application can be directed to be considered on the same day it is moved, has only to be decided now. Sri P. K. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel prays for and Is granted two weeks time to file a counter-affidavit in this writ petition as well an in the writ petitions mentioned above, which have been referred to a larger Bench of this Court for decision yesterday i.e. 1-2-1993. Rejoinder-affidavit in this petition as well as in the aforesaid two writ petitions may be filed within a week thereafter. Sri B. K. Bisaria and Sri G. S. Chaturvedi shall also file their written arguments along with their respective affidavits that they would be filing within the aforesaid period.;