Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused Persons Dr. Sushant Jadhav and two Trustees in Alleged Fake Doctors Case Involving 149 Deaths

The Bombay High Court granted bail to three accused persons in a case linked to the deaths of 149 patients at M.T. Agarwal Hospital, Mumbai. The case, registered under FIR No. 0298 of 2023, involved serious allegations of hiring unqualified or "bogus" doctors by Jeevan Jyot Charitable Trust, a key supplier of medical professionals to the hospital run by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). The accused in question were Dr. Sushant Ramchandra Jadhav (a homoeopathic doctor), Birendra Baijinath Yadav, and Deepak Mahaveer Jain (trustees of the trust). The charges ranged from culpable homicide to impersonation and forgery.

The informant, whose brother died at the hospital, uncovered, through an investigation under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, that several unqualified doctors had been employed in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and Intensive Coronary Care Unit (ICCU) at the hospital. These alleged fraudulent practices, taking place since 2018, were linked to 149 deaths. It was further claimed that death certificates were mechanically issued without proper regard for the actual causes of death, raising suspicions about criminal negligence and possible foul play. The FIR named trustees of the Trust and doctors who allegedly lacked proper qualifications.

The accused faced charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 (murder), Section 307 (attempt to murder), Sections 465 and 471 (forgery), along with relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.

Advocate Viral Rathod, representing Dr. Sushant Jadhav, argued that the charge under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act was misplaced as Jadhav was a duly registered homoeopathic practitioner, as evidenced by his registration certificate from the Maharashtra Council of Homoeopathy. It was contended that Jadhav had merely observed the proceedings at the hospital with no direct involvement in the alleged crimes.

Senior Advocate Ashok Mundargi, representing Birendra Yadav and Deepak Jain, challenged the prosecution's attempt to invoke vicarious liability under criminal law. He argued that, at worst, the accused could be held responsible for the lack of due diligence in verifying the qualifications of the doctors, but not for murder or attempted murder. It was submitted that their role as trustees did not extend to the daily operations of the hospital, which was under the purview of co-accused Surekha Chavan, who managed the Human Resources department of the Trust.

The defence further stated that the entire case was based on general allegations, with no specific connection between the accused and any identified victims.

Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, noted that the allegations in the FIR were broad and lacked specificity, particularly concerning the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The Court observed that neither the FIR nor the evidence brought forth by the prosecution established a direct link between the deaths and the actions of the accused. Without concrete evidence showing that any particular individual had died due to the alleged negligence or misconduct of the accused, the charges of murder and attempted murder could not be sustained at this stage.

The Court also observed that the role of the accused as trustees did not prima facie attract the stringent provisions of Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. Justice Pitale opined that, while the Trust could be held accountable under civil law or contractual obligations with the BMC, criminal liability, particularly under such severe charges, was not evident from the material on record.

Regarding the homoeopathic doctor, Dr. Jadhav, the Court found that the evidence of impersonation was weak, relying largely on hearsay statements from witnesses who admitted to learning about the impersonation through police inquiry rather than direct knowledge.

In light of the above findings, the Court granted bail to all three accused, subject to certain conditions. Each was required to furnish a bond of ₹50,000 along with one or two sureties. The Court directed the accused to cooperate with the trial proceedings and to refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The decision acknowledged that the trial was unlikely to commence or conclude soon, given the volume and complexity of the case.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail applications and that the trial court should proceed without being influenced by this order.

Advocate for Applicant: Mr. Viral Rathod a/w Mr. Vishwatej Jadhav; Mr. Ashok P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shreyansh R. Mithare, Mr. Meghdeep Oak, and Ms. Anjali Nimbkar.
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP a/w Mr. Mayur S. Sonavane.

Case Details: Dr. Sushant Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application Nos. 185/2024, Bombay High Court

(For more updates, tap to join us on Whatsapp, Instagram and LinkedIn)