Palok Basu, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a Govt. 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 male child excessive blood flowed and she was yet made to go walking to the operation theatre for some proposed treatment or operation. In spite 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, Indian Penal Code 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 the FIR prima facie indicate making out the offences. Therefore, at the stage of examining the allegations contained 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 and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha AIR 1982 5C 949 : (1982 Cri LJ 819) , case of State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1260 : (1991 Cri LJ 1438) and case of State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527). 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.
(3.) 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 bail 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. (sic) of 1992, Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P. and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. (sic) of 1993, Smt. Bhagwan Devi v. State of U.P. , enabling the larger Bench to consider the case of the petitioner, a Govt. Servant, 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 hear and decide the bail application of a Government servant on that very date of 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 pragmatically as strictly legal interpretation likely to interfere with the right of employment, should also be examined.;