Chandrapur Kidney Racket Doctor Fined for Forged Affidavit The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed the petition of Ravinderpal Singh Jaspal Singh, a Delhi-based doctor accused in the Chandrapur kidney transplant racket, for allegedly submitting a forged affidavit. The division bench, comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta, imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner, requiring him to deposit the amount within two weeks. If the fine remains unpaid, the matter will be revisited on July 15. The court emphasized that the petitioner had approached the court “not with clean hands” after the state highlighted discrepancies in the affidavit submitted on June 22. The petition challenged the actions of the Brahmapuri police in Chandrapur district, alleging violations of the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, as well as provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act. During the hearing, the government’s pleader, Devendra Chauhan, along with counsel Amit Chutke, argued that the affidavit had been submitted “by playing a fraud on court.” They presented the statement of lawyer and notary Poonam Moon, along with extracts from the notary register. The notary claimed the petitioner had not appeared before her for the swearing of the affidavit. The court noted inconsistencies between the signatures in the register extract and those in the affidavit. The bench referenced Supreme Court rulings in Vijay Syal versus State of Punjab and K D Sharma versus Steel Authority of India to stress that litigants must not mislead judicial proceedings.#bombay_high_court #brahmapuri_police #transplantation_of_human_organs_and_tissues_act #chandrapur_kidney_racket #ravinderpal_singh_jaspal_singh
Bombay High Court Rules Anticipatory Bail Not Valid After Arrest, Even With Transit Relief The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently clarified the legal boundaries of pre-arrest relief, ruling that an anticipatory bail application is not maintainable once an accused has been arrested, regardless of whether transit bail has been granted. The decision, delivered by Justice Rajnish Vyas, centered on a case involving a Nagpur-based individual arrested in Delhi over an FIR registered by Brahmapuri police in Chandrapur. The accused faced serious charges under the Indian Penal Code, the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, and provisions related to illegal organ transplantation. The court framed its ruling around the central issue of whether an accused who had been arrested, produced before a magistrate, and released on transit bail could still invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or relevant provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Sarkar Act (BNSS), 2023. Rejecting the petitioner’s plea, the court emphasized that once an arrest was executed, the legal remedy shifted from anticipatory bail to regular bail. It clarified that pre-arrest protections were no longer applicable after the arrest was completed. The petitioner argued that his arrest was merely a "paper arrest" since transit remand had been denied and he had been granted transit bail. He contended that the possibility of re-arrest justified his request for anticipatory bail. However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that the accused had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court in Chandrapur. Senior counsel Deven Chauhan, representing the government, argued that the petitioner was in "constructive custody" and had already accepted the jurisdiction of the Chandrapur court.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #rajnish_vyas #brahmapuri_police #chandrapur_court
