51. 51. 06.02.2025 06.02.2025 Ct. No. 28 (ARPAN) (REJECTED) C.R.M. (A) 311 of 2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tarakeswar Police Station Case No.433 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024 under Sections 272/318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; And In Re: Gagan Chandra Halder … Petitioner Mr. Subhojit Mukherjee …for the Petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar …for the State 1. Petitioner is the owner of ‘M/s Swagata Scientific Laboratory’. He contends the Ultra Sonography (USG) was done on the patient by a sonologist Dr. Prateek Adhikari. There is no irregularity in the matter. No final opinion has been given by CMOH, Hooghly in respect of the allegation of medical negligence and forging documents. Accordingly, he prays for anticipatory bail. 2. Learned lawyer for the State contends the diagnostic centre had given a false USG report. It was purportedly signed by Dr. Prateek Adhikari who has disowned the report. 3. In reply it is contended that Dr. Adhikari had signed the report and his signature on the report has been sent for verification by an expert. 4. We have considered the materials. Allegations levelled against the petitioner who is the owner of ‘M/s Swagata Scientific Laboratory’ are very serious. It is contended the petitioner’s clinic had issued fake USG report showing the patient suffered from ‘Mild Hepatomegaly’ purportedly signed by Dr. Pratik Adhikari, a sonologist. 2 Subsequently, another USG of the patient conducted at a different centre revealed she was suffering from ‘complicated acute appendicitis’. The condition of the patient deteriorated and she had to be treated at a medical centre. 5. Prima facie the aforesaid materials show a fake USG report had been issued by the petitioner’s clinic. Petitioner’s defense is that it was issued by the sonologist Dr. Prateek Adhikari who however, unequivocally stated that he had not conducted the said test and signed the report. His version is corroborated by the Whatsapp exchanges between the petitioner and the said sonologist wherein the latter clearly chastised the petitioner for falsely implicating him in the matter. The aforesaid materials show petitioner had dishonestly manufactured a fake USG report purportedly signed by a sonologist which endangered the life of a young patient. The gravity of the offence and prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the crime which endangered life is extremely serious and does not deserve relief in the form of pre-arrest bail. 6. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. (Subhendu Samanta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)