In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today refused to grant anticipatory bail to a doctor associated with Fortis Hospital, Jaipur, accused of conducting illegal kidney transplants as part of an international racket.
The bench, composed of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the doctor, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations which they stated required thorough legal investigation. The Rajasthan High Court had previously denied anticipatory bail to the doctor on August 30, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
During the proceedings, Justice Ravikumar firmly stated, “No question of anticipatory bail in a serious matter like this,” signaling the court’s intent not to entertain arguments over the legality of the bail plea.
The defense counsel argued that the proceedings were not maintainable under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, claiming that all procedures were performed with necessary consents and non-objection certificates purportedly issued by government officials. However, the bench highlighted allegations that suggested multiple patients had unknowingly had their kidneys removed, underlining the severity of the charges.
“The allegation is that kidneys of several persons were taken out,” Justice Ravikumar noted, questioning the supposed simplicity of the charges as suggested by the counsel.
Despite the counsel’s insistence on the legitimacy of the surgeries and their compliance with the law, the court maintained its stance, refusing to grant bail and stressing the need for a thorough investigation. The dialogue grew tense as the counsel continued to plead the case, leading to a stern warning from the bench about potentially adverse court observations if arguments persisted.
The backdrop of this case involves a dismissal by the Rajasthan High Court earlier this year, where Justice Sudesh Bansal cited evidence of the accused’s involvement in a network dealing with illegal kidney transplants, including suspicious financial transactions and communications with known brokers.
This case has stirred significant media attention due to the sensitive nature of organ transplants and the alleged breach of trust and legal protocols at a well-known medical institution. With both the High Court and the Supreme Court taking a firm stand against the anticipatory bail, the case is set to undergo rigorous scrutiny as investigations continue.
