Bail Condition Restricting Doctor From Running His Medical Centre Does Not Violate Right To Livelihood: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a bail condition, precluding a doctor, allegedly involved in a medical offence, from running his own medical centre, does not violate such a doctor's right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.Justice Subramonium Prasad held,“the Applicant, who is a doctor, who can carry out his profession as a doctor by being associated with...
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a bail condition, precluding a doctor, allegedly involved in a medical offence, from running his own medical centre, does not violate such a doctor's right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held,
“the Applicant, who is a doctor, who can carry out his profession as a doctor by being associated with any other medical centre of his choice where he can work. The fact that he is precluded from running the centre till the conclusion of the trial does not take away his livelihood.”
The bench was hearing an application to relax two bail conditions imposed on the Applicant— Condition No. (d) restricting him from indulging in the business of running a medical centre and Condition No.(c) requiring him not to leave Delhi.
The allegation against the Applicant was that he was running a medical centre where persons, who were not qualified, were conducting surgeries. The complaint was made by a woman following her husband's death due to excessive bleeding, allegedly in the aftermath of surgery performed by an unqualified doctor at Applicant's medical centre.
While granting the Applicant default bail in the case, the High Court had inter alia imposed abovesaid two conditions.
The High Court observed that conditions imposed while granting bail are only to ensure proper and fair investigation. Conditions can also be imposed to ensure that the person who has been accused of an offence does not commit an offence similar to the offence which he is accused of or is suspect or commission of which he is suspect.
In the present case, it noted, the condition restricting the Applicant from running a medical centre was imposed keeping in mind the above aspect.
“Condition No.(d), as stated above, does not take away the bread and butter…This Court is also of the view that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not violated by the Condition No.(d) of Paragraph 32, because the Applicant can continue to practice his profession as a doctor, as running a medical centre is not the only way in which the Applicant can practise his profession,” the Court observed.
As far as Condition No.(c) is concerned, the Court waived the same noting that investigation is complete and the trial has commenced. “If the Applicant wants to leave the country, he can do so with the permission of the concerned Trial Court,” the Court said and disposed of the matter
Appearance: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prateek Bhalla, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara, Ms. Vasundhara N., Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Sana Singh, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Ms. Gauri Ramachandran, Advocates for Applicant; Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the State with Mr. Madan Mohan Inspector for Respondents
Case title: Neeraj Agarwal v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1418
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 4848/2024