Assam Doctor Accused of Demanding ₹25,000 Bribe for Post-Mortem Report

Gohpur: A doctor at a government hospital in Assam's Biswanath district has been accused of demanding a ₹25,000 bribe to release the post-mortem report...
HomeSupreme Court & High CourtsSC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Jaipur Doctor in Illegal Kidney Transplant Case

SC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Jaipur Doctor in Illegal Kidney Transplant Case

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

Jaipur : The Supreme Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a doctor from Fortis Hospital, Jaipur, accused of involvement in an illegal kidney transplant racket with international links.

A bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP), underscoring the severity of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation. The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur bench) had earlier denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on August 30.

At the hearing, Justice Ravikumar stated: “No question of anticipatory bail in a serious matter like this.” The Court clarified that it would not delve into the merits of the case but emphasized the gravity of the allegations.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, did not apply in this case, as the procedures were conducted with patients’ consent and based on NOCs (non-objection certificates) issued by government officials. He claimed the hospital relied on the patients’ assertion that the donors and recipients were related.

Justice Ravikumar countered, stating: “The allegation is kidneys of several persons were taken out… We cannot simply shut our eyes. Patients trust hospitals when admitted; if such allegations are made, they demand serious investigation.”

Despite assurances from the counsel regarding cooperation with the investigation and references to bail being granted to other management members, the Court refused to provide any protection. As the counsel pressed his arguments, the bench warned: “You are inviting some observations… Allegations of this nature require serious inquiry.”

In conclusion, the Court reiterated its stance, emphasizing that such allegations cannot be overlooked and must be investigated thoroughly.