Bail Condition Barring Doctor To Run Medical Centre Till Conclusion Of Trial Doesn't Violate Right To Livelihood: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a bail condition barring a doctor involved in a medical crime from to run centre till conclusion of trial is not violative of right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The Court was considering an Application seeking modification in bail condition granted for offences punishable under Sections 304, 419, 420, 196, 197, 198, 201 and 201B of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, "....This Court also cannot shut its eyes to the allegations made in the present case. Condition No.(d), as stated above, does not take away the bread and butter of the Applicant, who is a doctor, who can carry out his profession as a doctor by being associated with any other medical centre of his choice where he can work. The fact that he is precluded from running the centre till the conclusion of the trial does not take away his livelihood......This Court is also of the view that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not violated by the Condition No.(d) of Paragraph 32, because the Applicant can continue to practice his profession as a doctor, as running a medical centre is not the only way in which the Applicant can practise his profession."

The Applicant was represented by Senior Advocate N. Hariharan while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Nawal Kishore Jha.

Facts of the Case

It was alleged in the Complaint that the husband of the Complainant was having acute pain in abdomen, for which they consulted one local doctor who gave an injection to her husband for immediate relief and referred them to Medical Centre for further treatment. On reaching the said medical centre, they met the owner of the medical centre who told them that he has a super specialist team of doctors who is an expert in removing gallbladder stones and a fee of Rs.35,000/- was quoted for the said operation.

It was stated in the complaint that when the patient was brought out of the Operation Theatre, he was suffering from severe pain and blood was oozing from his belly. The Complainant was told to take her husband to some other hospital and referral papers were prepared and an ambulance was called for upon whom the husband of the Complainant was taken to Safdarjung Hospital but he was declared as brought dead.

The case of the prosecution was that the doctor at the Centre didn't conduct the surgery but had only prepared the surgery note on the request of the Applicant and that the surgeons who are not qualified for performing surgeries are conducting surgeries at the centre.

The Court later granted bail to the Applicants with conditions. Senior Counsel for the Applicant stated one of the Condition violates the Applicant's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it deprives him of his livelihood. He stated that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of every accused, until proven guilty and this condition actually holds the Applicant guilty even before the trial is over. He stated that the said condition is extremely onerous as the Applicant would be unable to live his life with dignity.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset pointed out that it is well settled that an essential requirement of imposing any condition is that the Court must be extremely wary and see that they maintain a balance between personal liberty and the right of the Police to investigate the case.

"Be that as it may, the Courts can impose conditions to ensure that the person who has been accused of an offence does not commit an offence similar to the offence which he is accused of or is suspect or commission of which he is suspect. In the present case, the allegation against the Applicant, who was running a medical centre, is that persons who were not qualified were conducting surgeries. Only keeping that allegation in mind, the condition restricting the Applicant herein from running a medical centre was imposed by this Court. The Applicant, who is a doctor by profession, is not precluded from being associated with any medical centre for earning his livelihood. He can conduct his medical activities in a centre other than the centre which he is running or operating, as the allegation against him is that while running a medical centre, person(s) who were not qualified to perform surgeries performed such surgeries", the Court observed.

It was of the view that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not violated by the Condition No.(d) of Paragraph 32, because the Applicant can continue to practice his profession as a doctor, as running a medical centre is not the only way in which the Applicant can practise his profession.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Neeraj Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2025:DHC:9514)

Appearances:

Applicant- Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, Advocate Prateek Bhalla, Advocate Punya Rekha Angara, Advocate Vasundhara N., Advocate Aman Akhtar, Advocate Sana Singh, Advocate Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Advocate Arjan Singh Mandla, Advocate Gauri Ramachandran

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Nawal Kishore Jha.

Click here to read/ download Order

Click here to read/ download Order