In a scathing observation highlighting bureaucratic inefficiency, the Allahabad High Court has summoned the Director General of Medical Health, Uttar Pradesh, to explain the lack of radiologists in district hospitals across the state. The court termed the situation a “classic example of red tape approach” after hearing a bail application related to a criminal case where the absence of a radiologist had caused significant delays in the medical examination of a victim.
Background of the Case
The case involves a bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19345 of 2024) filed by Prakash Kumar Gupta, who has been accused under Sections 363, 366, and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 5L and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The applicant is alleged to have abducted a minor girl aged 13 years from Sahatwar, District Ballia, on March 16, 2023, and subsequently committed sexual assault.
The FIR was registered one day after the alleged incident, and there was no specific mention of the time of the offence. The victim’s ossification test, conducted on the court’s direction, revealed that her age was 19 years, contradicting the initial claim that she was a minor. This discrepancy led to questions regarding the applicability of the POCSO Act, which only applies to minors.
Important Legal Issues and Observations
The court, presided over by Justice Krishan Pahal, examined several crucial legal questions:
1. Applicability of the POCSO Act: The court highlighted that the Act was designed to protect minors under 18 years from sexual exploitation. However, in this case, the victim was found to be 19 years old based on the ossification test report. The court observed that misrepresenting the age of the victim to fall under the POCSO Act could lead to severe consequences for the accused, including wrongful imprisonment.
– “The POCSO Act is designed to protect minors, but in this case, it appears to have been misused due to the false information provided by the informant,” the court noted. “This misuse not only harms the applicant but also undermines the credibility and integrity of the legal system and the POCSO Act itself.”
2. Presumption of Innocence and Right to Bail: Justice Pahal reiterated the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. He referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in cases such as Jaya Mala vs. State of J&K and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasize that bail should not be withheld as a punishment.
– The court stated, “It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that ‘bail is a rule and jail is an exception’.”
3. Failure to Provide Adequate Medical Facilities: The court criticized the state authorities for their inability to provide a radiologist at district hospitals, which delayed the ossification test required to determine the age of the victim. The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Ballia had to arrange for the test in other districts, causing further trauma to the victim.
– “The victim has been carried from one place to another due to the non-availability of a radiologist,” observed Justice Pahal. “This Court has time and again observed that the radiologists are not posted at various districts across the State.”
Court’s Decision and Directions
The court allowed the bail application of Prakash Kumar Gupta, noting that the prosecution failed to establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant the denial of bail. The court directed his release on a personal bond and two sureties, with specific conditions attached to ensure his presence during trial proceedings.
In response to the lack of radiologists, the court directed the personal appearance of several high-ranking officials, including:
– The Director General of Medical and Health Services, Uttar Pradesh.
– The Additional Director, Health, Azamgarh.
– The Chief Medical Officer of Varanasi.
The court also ordered the Director General to file an affidavit providing detailed information on the number of radiologists posted in various districts, their qualifications, and the extent to which they were benefiting from government quotas.
Summons to Director General of Medical Health
The court’s order to summon the Director General came after it was revealed that the absence of radiologists had caused significant delays in the medical examination of the victim. The victim was initially taken to Varanasi and then to Azamgarh, only to face repeated refusals and delays due to administrative red tape.
– “This is a classic example of a red tape approach,” the court remarked, expressing its displeasure over the bureaucratic hurdles that led to the denial of timely medical care.
The case will next be heard on September 27, 2024, with the court directing the Registrar Compliance to ensure that the relevant officials are informed and present on the scheduled date.
