New Delhi: The Supreme Court on November 20 refused anticipatory bail to a Fortis Hospital doctor in Jaipur, accused of involvement in an international illegal kidney transplant racket. A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol dismissed the Special Leave Petition, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for thorough investigation.
Court’s Observations
- Justice Ravikumar remarked, “No question of anticipatory bail in a serious matter like this,” underscoring the gravity of the case, where kidneys were allegedly removed under suspicious circumstances.
- The Court pointed out that such allegations directly impact the trust patients place in hospitals and require rigorous investigation.
Arguments by Petitioner’s Counsel
Advocate Abhishek Gupta argued that:
- The operations were conducted with Non-Objection Certificates (NOCs) provided by government officials.
- The hospital acted on assurances from patients that donors and receivers were related, as mandated under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.
- His client had been cooperating with the investigation and that others in the management allegedly involved had already received bail.
The Court, however, maintained that the allegations were too severe to grant anticipatory bail and declined to allow the petitioner to withdraw the plea.
Background
- The Rajasthan High Court had earlier rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail plea on August 30, noting substantial evidence, including telephonic contact with brokers and suspicious financial transactions.
- The petitioner and another doctor were implicated in forging documents, bypassing authorization committees, and collaborating with brokers to facilitate illegal kidney transplants for financial gain.
- Offences included charges under Sections 420, 419, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 18 and 19 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.
High Court’s Findings
Justice Sudesh Bansal of the Rajasthan High Court, in May, observed that evidence suggested:
- Money transactions beyond salaries indicated potential involvement in illegal activities.
- The petitioner was part of a team conducting unauthorized kidney transplants in collaboration with brokers.
Given the gravity of the allegations and evidence, the High Court refused to quash the FIR, and the Supreme Court has now upheld the decision for further investigation.
