The Supreme Court of India has denied anticipatory bail to a doctor accused of involvement in an international illegal kidney transplant racket. The doctor, from Fortis Hospital in Jaipur, had approached the Supreme Court after being denied anticipatory bail by the Rajasthan High Court.
You are trying to say this is a very simple matter, it is to only be ignored. Sorry, we cannot ignore because lives of persons who trust in approaching and getting admitted to the hospitals, if this is the kind of allegation, it should be investigated.Justice Ravikumar
Justice CT Ravikumar stated that the allegations against the doctor were of a serious nature, requiring thorough investigation, and thus, anticipatory bail was not warranted. The doctor's counsel argued that the kidney transplants were performed with the consent of the patients and in accordance with the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. However, the court remained unconvinced, citing the need for investigation into the allegations.
We are carrying out operations on the basis of NOCs[non-objection certificates] which are supposed to be given by Government officials which is given to the management of the Hospital. They should be related.The Counsel said
Allegations Against the Doctor:
Performing illegal kidney transplants in collaboration with brokers and hospital administrators
Forgery of documents, including non-objection certificates (NOCs)
Financial transactions without approval from the Authorization Committees
Telephonic contact with brokers and receipt of money transactions in his bank account apart from his salary
The Supreme Court's decision comes after the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the doctor's petition seeking quashing of the case. With this denial of anticipatory bail, the doctor faces the possibility of arrest and further investigation into the allegations.
It's worth noting that the Delhi High Court addressed a similar case involving money laundering and illegal kidney transplantation conspiracy, emphasizing that bail can be challenged and canceled if relevant facts and laws were not considered or if irrelevant factors were taken into account.
(Input From Various Sources)
(Rehash/Neha Kamble/MSM)