Madras High Court Grants Conditional Bail to Accused in Assault Case Involving Doctor
The Madras High Court, in Vignesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, granted conditional bail to the petitioner, Vignesh, accused of assaulting a doctor at a hospital following an altercation over his mother's medical treatment. The case, adjudicated by Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira, involved charges under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Tamil Nadu Medicare Service Persons and Medicine Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to the Property) Act, 2008.
The petitioner was accused of using a knife to assault the doctor after a dispute over the quality of medical treatment provided to his mother on November 13, 2024. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner engaged in verbal abuse and escalated the matter into physical violence, causing injuries to the doctor. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Crime No. 400 of 2024, invoking multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, including Sections 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 121(2), 109, 351(3), and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Medicare Service Persons and Medicine Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to the Property) Act.
The petitioner’s counsel, citing his continued incarceration since November 14, 2024, pleaded for bail, asserting that the altercation arose out of emotional distress and dissatisfaction with the treatment. Counsel further contended that the petitioner held no prior criminal record and was prepared to comply with stringent conditions. It was submitted, “The petitioner is a first-time offender with no history of unlawful behavior. The unfortunate incident was triggered by circumstances beyond his control, and he is willing to adhere to any conditions imposed by this Court.”
Opposing the plea, the prosecution contended the seriousness of the offense, asserting the assault’s impact on public safety and the sanctity of the medical profession. However, it was also acknowledged that the injured doctor had since been discharged from the hospital. The prosecution submitted, “While the petitioner’s act was reprehensible, there is no evidence of prior offenses. The injury inflicted, though serious, has not led to permanent harm to the victim.”
Justice Chandira, after examining the submissions, invoked the principles governing the grant of bail, particularly focusing on the presumption of innocence and proportionality. The court noted, “Bail is not a matter of right but a discretionary relief granted under specific circumstances. The objective is not to punish the accused pre-trial but to ensure their presence and compliance with judicial processes.”
The court carefully weighed the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents and the period of incarceration against the gravity of the alleged offense. It observed, “Considering the petitioner’s continued detention and the absence of prior criminal involvement, this Court is inclined to grant bail while safeguarding the interests of justice through stringent conditions.”
The court delineated specific conditions to mitigate risks associated with granting bail:
- Security Bond: The petitioner was ordered to execute a bond for ₹15,000 with two sureties of like amount, supported by valid identification documents, such as Aadhaar or bank passbooks. “This ensures accountability and verifiability of the sureties,” the court stated.
- Residence and Reporting Obligations: The petitioner was directed to reside in Vellore and report daily to the Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari Police Station, at 10:30 a.m., until further orders. “The reporting condition ensures the petitioner remains accessible to law enforcement,” noted the court.
- Non-Tampering Clause: The court prohibited the petitioner from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses during the investigation or trial. “Such conduct would compromise the integrity of the judicial process and undermine public trust in the system,” the court emphasized.
- Compliance Enforcement: The court invoked the precedent set in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560], allowing the Magistrate to take immediate action if the petitioner breached bail conditions. “The judiciary retains the authority to revoke bail if its terms are flouted,” it observed.
- Absconding Clause: Should the petitioner abscond, the court directed that a fresh FIR be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Case Title: Vignesh v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: Crl.O.P. No. 30928 of 2024
Bench: Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira
