Doctor Gets Bail In Alleged Abduction Over Hospital Partner’s 15% Stake After HC Notes Caste-Abuse Claim Was Added A Day Later

The appellant, a practising doctor and partner in Front Line Hospital, was accused of arranging the abduction and intimidation of the fourth respondent, the power agent of the third respondent, in connection with the proposed transfer of the third respondent’s 15% share in the hospital.

A complaint was lodged five days after the alleged incident; the original FIR named two other persons, and the appellant’s name was added manually.

The initial complaints alleged abduction and threat but did not refer to caste abuse; that allegation was introduced in a subsequent alteration report.

The appellant contended that the case arose from long-running partnership disputes and a proposed share-transfer arrangement, and sought bail after the Sessions Court refused it.

Section 14(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the order refusing bail.

In deciding whether to grant bail, the Court considered the nature and apparent reliability of the allegations, relevant inconsistencies in the complaints, the applicant’s period in custody, antecedents, roots in the community, risk of absconding, and the stage of investigation; it concluded that the prosecution’s concerns could be addressed through conditions.

The Court also relied on P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, AIR 2005 SC 100, in directing that the police may seek cancellation of bail upon breach of the conditions.

The FIR-related offences identified in the judgment included Sections 61(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(1), 311, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court found that the alleged incident arose against the background of pending partnership litigation and a disputed share-transfer arrangement, including the transfer of Rs. 1 crore to the power agent.

It considered significant that the complaints were lodged after a delay, neither initially alleged caste abuse, and differed on whether a knife was used; it also noted that the appellant’s name was manually inserted in the printed FIR.

These circumstances led the Court to consider that the prosecution case required close scrutiny and that a civil dispute might have been given a criminal character.

Given the appellant’s age, professional and community roots, lack of established adverse antecedents, and time in custody, the Court held that the investigation-related concerns could be met by conditions.

He was required to execute a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties for the like sum, ensure the sureties’ identity was verified, and report to the trial Court at 10:30 a.m. on every working day until further orders.

The police may apply to cancel bail if he breaches the conditions.

The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the pending criminal cases or civil proceedings.