ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                        [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1007                            1007


         ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS.                             A
                                 v.
          STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
              (Criminal Appeal Nos. 660-662 of 2020)
                        OCTOBER 08, 2020                                B
        [UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN AND
                 AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
       Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 – s.6(1) –
Appellants after completing MBBS course were pursuing PG Degree
                                                                        C
Course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and Obstetrics and were also
working as residents in a Hospital attached to their College – A
student, a year junior to the appellants, resident in the same
Department and pursuing the same course committed suicide – FIR
registered against the appellants – Appellants suspended by the
Dean of the Hospital and the College – Bail granted to the appellants   D
by High Court with certain conditions – While some conditions were
later relaxed/recalled, condition no.(iv) on the appellants to not
enter their College and the Hospital was maintained – On appeal,
held: To take appropriate action u/s.6(1), the concerned head of
the educational institution must prima facie be satisfied that the
                                                                        E
allegations against the student have been found to be true,
whereafter, an order of suspension can be passed – In the present
case, the order of suspension does not even record any such finding
or prima facie view – It was not passed by virtue of power entrusted
u/s.6(1) but was on the ground that there was an FIR against the
appellants – Thus, order of suspension is not referable to s.6(1) –     F
Further, apart from s.6(1), no other statutory provision has been
referred to or relied upon – On balancing the competing claims, the
condition is relaxed and the appellants are permitted to go back to
the College and the Hospital to pursue their studies, subject to the
conditions as stated, otherwise the pendency of prosecution against
                                                                        G
them will add further penalty in the form of prejudicing their career
– Any such adverse impact will negate their rights u/Art.21 – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.174 and 164 – Penal Code, 1860
– s.306 r/w s.34 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 – Maharashtra Medical
                                                                        H
                                1007
1008            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     Council Act, 1965 – s.22(1) – Medical Council of India Post
       Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Medical Council
       of India (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges/
       Institutions) Regulations, 2009 – Paras 7, 8 – Constitution of India
       – Art.21.
 B            Allowing the appeals, the Court
              HELD: 1.1 Notice was issued to see if going back to the
       College would not be feasible, whether the Appellants could be
       allowed migration to any other college/institution so that both
       the elements viz. (i) relating to the career and prospects of the
 C     Appellants and (ii) the interest of the prosecution in keeping the
       witnesses away from the possibility of influence by the Appellants;
       would get satisfied and taken care of. The matter has travelled
       far from what was noted and noticed in the beginning and now the
       respondents have placed the Order of Suspension of the
       Appellants on record and insist that so long as the Order of
 D     Suspension is in operation, the Appellants cannot be allowed to
       go back to their course of study. [Para 23][1029-G; 1030-B]
             1.2 It must be noted:-
             a) The Appellants are three lady doctors who are pursuing
 E     Post Graduate medical course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and
       Obstetrics in Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai and
       have completed two years out of three years’ of course. The
       course is well coveted and considered to be a specialty course in
       that field. The Appellants do not appear to be original residents
       of Mumbai and, as such, it cannot be said that they or their families
 F     have deep-rooted presence in Mumbai.
             b) As noticed by this Court in Sumit Mehta, if the law
       presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved, the
       Appellants as presumably innocent persons, are entitled to all
       the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed
 G     under Article 21 of the Constitution and are entitled to pursue
       their course of study so long as exercise of said right does not
       hamper smooth conduct and progress of the prosecution.
            c) The stand taken by the State through the affidavit filed
       by the Deputy Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs
 H
 ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                        1009
           MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Department, Government of Maharashtra, is that the Appellants          A
can prosecute their Post Graduate course in future after conclusion
of the trial. Said submission and the observation by the High Court
in para 11 of the order are not correct. Even a convict is allowed
to have academic pursuits while undergoing sentence and
develop his potential as a human being to the fullest. The State
                                                                       B
apparatus must facilitate such pursuits rather than hamper any
attempts in that behalf.
     d) It is a matter of record that the statements of all material
witnesses have been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. In fact, the High Court went to the
extent of ensuring that such statements are recorded so that           C
witnesses could not be won over by the Appellants after they
were enlarged on bail. Therefore, the apprehension that the
witnesses could be influenced is not quite correct.
      e) The majority of witnesses to be examined by the
prosecution appear to be in permanent employment of the College        D
and the Hospital. It will be difficult to imagine that three lady
doctors who do not otherwise belong to Mumbai will be able to
influence any such witnesses by their mere presence in the
College and the Hospital.
      f) The Appellants require to put in the last year of their       E
course and as stated, the actual period that they need to undergo
by way of training is only nine months. [Para 24][1030-D-H; 1031-
A-E]
      Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC
      570 : [2013] 10 SCR 125 – relied on.                             F
      1.3 The facts on record indicate that the report of the Anti-
Ragging Committee and the Order of Suspension were issued
on the same date i.e. on 27.05.2019. The submission that the
Order of Suspension was not based on the report of the Anti-
Ragging Committee merits acceptance because of following               G
features viz. (a) the outward number for the Order of Suspension
is NDN/172 while that of the report of Anti-Ragging Committee
is NDN/183, which means the Order of Suspension was issued
earlier to the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee; (b) both the
communications are under the signature of the Dean of the College
                                                                       H
1010           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     and the Hospital and yet, the Order of Suspension does not make
       any reference to the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee; (c)
       the Order of Suspension is based purely on the registration of
       FIR registered against the Appellants which is why “taking
       cognizance of this” the Order of Suspension was passed; and (d)
       when a request for revocation of suspension was made, it was
 B
       rejected on 25.10.2019 because of order dated 09.08.2019 of the
       High court and not because of the report of the Anti-Ragging
       Committee. [Para 25][1031-F-H; 1032-A-B]
             1.4 To take appropriate action under Section 6(1) of
       Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999, the concerned
 C     head of the educational institution must prima facie be satisfied
       that the allegations against the student have been found to be
       true, whereafter, an order of suspension can be passed. The Order
       of Suspension does not even record any such finding or prima
       facie view. As a matter of fact, the Order of Suspension was not
 D     passed by virtue of power entrusted under Section 6(1) of 1999
       Act but was based on the grounds that the Appellants were
       creating hurdles in the enquiry by the police and that there was
       an FIR against them. The Order of Suspension is not referable
       to Section 6(1) of 1999 Act. Apart from Section 6(1), no other
       statutory provision has been referred to or relied upon. Para 8.1
 E     of Medical Council of India (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging
       in Medical Colleges/Institutions) Regulations, is applicable to
       cases where a student has been ‘foundguilty of ragging’ which
       presupposes valid exercise of power. The effects contemplated
       by said Para 8.1 come into operation only thereafter. Neither the
 F     provisions of 1999 Act nor 2009 Regulations get attracted to the
       present case. [Paras 26-28][1032-D-G]
             1.5 A submission is raised that in a matter arising from the
       request for relaxation of condition, no collateral attack on the
       Suspension Order be permitted. It is submitted that the
 G     Appellants are free to challenge the Order of Suspension and so
       long as that order is not set aside, the Appellants cannot be
       allowed to come back to the College or the Hospital. No merit is
       found in the aforesaid submissions. Relaxation sought in respect
       of condition no. (iv) takes within its fold all submissions with
       respect to matters arising from the registration of the crime and
 H
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                          1011
            MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

steps undertaken pursuant thereto. Since the Order of Suspension          A
was passed purely as a result of registration of crime and did not
have any roots in statutory powers conferred under Section 6 of
1999 Act, this Court can certainly grant redress to the Appellants.
[Paras 29, 30][1033-A-C]

      1.6 While balancing the competing claims, the Appellants            B
must be allowed to go back to their courses of study otherwise
the pendency of prosecution against them will add further penalty
in the form of prejudicing their career. Any such adverse impact
will negate their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Considering the matter in its entirety and especially when the            C
Appellants have to undergo training under the same guide and in
the same institution where they were registered, ends of justice
would be met if condition no. (iv) as laid down by the High Court
is relaxed and the Appellants are permitted to go back to the
College and the Hospital to pursue their studies, subject to the
conditions as stated. It is made clear that the Appellants shall be       D
permitted to pursue their courses of study regardless of the Order
of Suspension dated 27.05.2019. [Paras 31-33][1033-D-F; 1034-
E]

      Kunal Kumar Tiwari alias Kunal Kumar v. State of Bihar
      and another (2018) 16 SCC 74 – referred to.                         E

                        Case Law Reference

[2013] 10 SCR 125                relied on           Para 16

(2018) 16 SCC 74                 referred to         Para 16              F

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
660-662 of 2020.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Interim Application Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 2019    G
Criminal Appeal No. 911 of 2019 respectively.

      Sidharth Luthra, Ms. Indira Jaising, B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Advs.,
Kunal Cheema, Jagvijay Gandhi, Ms. Aditi Parkhi, Ms. Subhangini Jain,
Pankaj Singhal, Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Disha Wadekar,
                                                                          H
1012                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     Prastut Dalvi, Zeeshan Diwan, Paras Nath Singh, Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee,
       Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Ms. Aruja Savla, Sachin
       Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Geo Joseph, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia and
       Dhawal Mohan, Advs., for the appearing parties.
                 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 B
                 UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
                 1. Leave granted.
              2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order
       dated 21.02.2020 passed by the High Court1 in Interim Application Nos.2,
 C     3 and 4 of 2019 (preferred by Dr. Ankita Kailash Khandelwal, Dr. Hema
       Suresh Ahuja and Dr. Bhakti Arvind Mehare – respectively; who are
       collectively referred to as the Appellants hereafter) in Criminal Appeal
       No.911 of 2019.
              3. The Interim Applications were preferred by the Appellants
 D     seeking relaxation of condition nos.(iii), (iv) and (v) imposed upon them
       in order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the High Court while granting them
       bail.
             4. The basic facts leading to the filing of said Criminal Appeal No.
       911 of 2019, in brief, are as under:-
 E           a) The Appellants after completing MBBS course were pursuing
       Post Graduate Degree course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and Obstetrics in
       Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai (‘the College’, for short).
       They completed two years out of three years of course in April, 2019
       and were working as residents in B.Y.L. Nair Charity Hospital (‘the
 F     Hospital’, for short) attached to the College.
             b) Dr. Payal Tadvi was also student of Post Graduate Degree
       Course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the College and
       completed first year of the coursein April, 2019. She was thus a year
       junior to the Appellants and all of them were residents in the same
       Department and pursuing the same course.
 G
             c) On 22.05.2019 at about 9:00 p.m., Agripada Police Station,
       Mumbai received an information that Dr. Payal Tadvi had committed
       suicide by hanging herself in her room. Initially a case under Section 174
       ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’, for short) was
       1
 H         The High Court of Judicature at Bombay
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                             1013
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

recorded. After the complaint was lodged by the mother of Dr. Payal          A
Tadvi that her daughter was harassed by the Appellants and that they
were directly responsible for the suicide committed by her daughter,
Crime No.157 of 2019 was registered against the Appellants under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for
short), under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
                                                                             B
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and also under Section 4 of the
Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘1999 Act’).
       d) By communication bearing No. NDN/172 dated 27.05.2019,
taking cognizance of the FIR registered against them, the Appellants
were suspended by the Dean of the Hospital and the College. The relevant     C
text of the communication addressed to Dr. Bhakti Arvind Mehare, one
of the Appellants was as under:-
      “It has come to our notice that you have unofficially been absent
      from work since 22.05.2019. The Professor and the Head of
      department of Obstetrics and gynaecology have informed our office      D
      that you have been absent.
      On 22.05.2019, Dr. Payal Salman Tadvi, who was pursuing Post
      Graduation at the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of Nair
      Hospital has committed suicide in hostel room no. 806. Abeda
      Salim Tadvi, the mother of Dr. Payal, has lodged a complaint with      E
      Agripada Police Station. Based on the complaint, an FIR has been
      lodged against Dr. Bhakti Mehere. Cr.Reg.No.157/99 under
      Section 306, Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, read with Section 4
      of Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 read with
      Section 3(10) of SC, ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989; read       F
      with Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
      Instead of cooperating with the investigation by the State in such
      a serious incident, you have gone missing from work as well as
      your residence with the intention to avoid the police investigation
      and without informing any of the officials and without taking prior    G
      permission. This has therefore, created hurdles in the inquiry being
      conducted by the Police/ Administration. In addition to this, an
      FIR against you has been lodged in Agripada Police Station. Taking
      cognizance of this, you are being suspended from 27.05.2019, till
      further orders.”
                                                                             H
1014             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A           e) On the same date, report bearing no. NDN/183 dated
       27.05.2019 under the signature of the Dean of the Hospital and the
       College, was made which noted the opinion of Ragging Prevention
       Committee and recommended that the Appellants be immediately
       suspended. Action was also recommended against the related Unit Head
       and Unit Head of Gynaecology and Maternity Ward.
 B
             f) The Appellants were arrested on 29.05.2019. The investigation
       was thereafter transferred to the Crime Branch and the case was
       renumbered as Crime No.49 of 2019. During the course of investigation,
       statements of more than 100 witnesses were recorded by the Crime
       Branch. After completion of investigation, charge sheet running into 1200
 C     pages was filed and the matter is still at the stage of consideration whether
       the charges are required to be framed or not.
              g) Bail Application No.1338 of 2019 preferred by the Appellants
       was rejected by the Court of Sessions (Gr. Bombay) at Bombay by
       order dated 24.06.2019. The Appellants, being aggrieved, filed Criminal
 D     Appeal No.911 of 2019 under Section 14A (2) of 1989 Act in the High
       Court.
              5. When the appeal was taken up for hearing by the High Court,
       the grant of bail to the Appellants was not seriously objected to as is
       clear from paragraph 4 of the order dated 09.08.2019, which was to the
 E     following effect:-
             “4. Mr. Ponda submits that having regard to the fact that the
             investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed, the appellants
             deserve to be enlarged on bail. The learned Special Public
             Prosecutor Mr. Thakre has also been fair enough to consider that
 F           he has no serious objection to grant of bail to the appellants. This
             Court has perused the charge-sheet, which runs into not less than
             1200 pages. The Crime Branch has recorded the statements of
             about more than 100 witnesses who have implicated the Appellants-
             accused. Although, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellants
 G           are entitled to grant of bail, the same would be subject to stringent
             conditions.”
             5.1. The order also recorded in paragraph 13 that statements of
       material witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code. Said
       paragraph was:-
 H
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                              1015
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      “13. During the course of hearing of this appeal for bail, this Court   A
      had made a query as to whether the statements of material
      witnesses had been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of
      Criminal Procedure, 1973. As the answer was in the negative,
      this Court ensured that the statements of the material witnesses
      such as Dr. Snehal Shinde, Dr. Geeta Kulkarni and others were
                                                                              B
      recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
      1973, in order to ensure that the witnesses are not won over by
      the accused person after being enlarged on bail.”
       5.2. However while granting bail to the Appellants, certain
conditions were imposed by the High Court in its order dated 09.08.2019
with following observations:-                                                 C

      “18.The Apex Court has also directed the Courts to consider as
      to whether the investigation is completed and whether the accused
      has cooperated with the investigation. In the present case, the
      investigation is completed, statements of the witnesses are recorded
      under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and           D
      charge-sheet is filed. Moreover, the appellants had joined
      investigation. Hence, the appellants deserve to be enlarged on
      bail.
      19. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants
      in the present case are not accused of Section 302 or 307 of the        E
      Indian Penal Code or any terrorist activities and the extreme steps
      taken by the deceased Dr. Payal would reflect upon her psyche
      and her ability to handle pressures in the medical profession and
      therefore, according to him, the appellants deserve bail. Even if
      this submission is accepted, the Court cannot be oblivious of the       F
      fact, that mental injury can be more serious than physical injury.
      Mental injury may drive a person to any extreme step like the
      present one since it can never be seen, but it is only reflected by
      overt action or silence on the part of the victim. The question
      whether the appellants had the intention to drive Dr. Tadvi to
      commit suicide is a matter which will be decided by the Trial           G
      Court.
      20. Having regard to what is stated hereinabove, the appeal
      deserves to be allowed.
      21. Hence, following order is passed :
                                                                              H
1016      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A                               ORDER
       (i) The appeal under section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
       Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for seeking
       enlargement on bail is allowed after imposing certain stringent
       conditions.
 B     (ii) The appellants be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in
       the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only) each and one or
       more solvent local sureties.
       (iii) The appellants shall not leave Mumbai without the permission
       of the Court. The appellants shall report to the office of Crime
 C     Branch, Nagpada every alternative day till framing of charge.
       (iv) The appellants shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Agripada
       Police Station and more particularly, Topiwala National Medical
       College (B.Y.L. Nair Ch. Hospital).

 D     (v) The licences of the appellants issued by Medical Council of
       India as well as Maharashtra Medical Council shall be remained
       suspended till conclusion of the trial.
       (vi) The appellants shall attend the trial Court on every date unless
       exempted by the trial Court.
 E     (vii) Upon committing breach of any condition imposed herein,
       the investigating agency would be at liberty to seek cancellation
       of bail.
       (viii) The applicant shall be released on provisional cash bail of
       Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only) each for a period of 8 weeks,
 F     within which they shall furnish solvent local sureties to the
       satisfaction of the Special Court, Mumbai.
       (ix) It is made clear that even while on provisional cash bail, all
       the above said conditions would apply.
       (x) The appellants shall file an undertaking with respect to aforesaid
 G     clauses (iii) and (vi) in the trial Court within two weeks from the
       date of release.
       (xi) The Special Court, Mumbai shall not be influenced in any
       manner with the observations made by this Court in this Appeal
       under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
 H
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                               1017
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as all the observations are restricted   A
      to the grant of bail and not otherwise.
      23. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
      6. On 25.10.2019, the request made by the Appellants for
revocation of their suspension was rejected by the Dean of the Hospital
and the College stating as under:-                                             B

      “… …In this letter you have requested to revoke the suspension.
      But as per the order of Honorable Court on dated 9/08/2019 it is
      not possible to revoke the suspension at this point.”
       7. The undertakings as contemplated by sub-para 9 of paragraph          C
21 of the Order dated 09.08.2019 were filed by the Appellants and it is
accepted that the conditions imposed by said order were not violated by
the Appellants. However, as a result of condition no.(v), their licences to
practice as medical professionals stood suspended; and by virtue of
condition no.(iii) they could not leave the city of Mumbai without the
express permission of the Court. Further, as a result of condition no.(iv)     D
they could not enter the Hospital and the College where they were
pursuing their Post Graduate courses. In the circumstances, in November,
2019, Interim Applications No.2, 3 and 4 of 2019 were preferred by the
Appellants seeking relaxation of condition nos.(iii), (iv) and (v) imposed
in order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the High Court.                            E
       8. On 10.01.2020, the Maharashtra Medical Council suspended
the licence of Dr. Ankita Kailash Khandelwal and Dr. Bhakti Arvind
Mehare. There was no such order of suspension with respect to Dr.
Hema Suresh Ahuja, as she was not registered with the Maharashtra
Medical Council.                                                               F
      9. While considering Interim Applications 2, 3 and 4 of 2019, the
High Court summoned Dr. Ganesh Shinde, Head of Department,
Gynaecology, whose submissions as well as the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for the State were recorded thus:-
      “2. As on today, Dr. Ganesh Shinde, was summoned by this Court           G
      to ascertain the effect of relaxation of the said condition. Dr.
      Shinde is present before the Court. He has submitted that pursuant
      to the order dated 28th February, 2019, he had called a meeting of
      the staff members, the faculty members, nurses and other persons
      who are witnesses in the present case. There is a grave hostility
                                                                               H
1018             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A           towards the applicants. It is submitted that their presence in the
             B.Y.L. Nair Charity Hospital may change the facet of the trial
             and that possibility of the witnesses being won over cannot be
             ruled out and the at the same time the hospital will not take the
             responsibility of any harm caused to the accused applicants at the
             hands of the witnesses as a reaction to the incident which occurred
 B
             on 22nd May 2019 in which Dr. Payal Tadvi had committed suicide
             in the residential quarter of B.Y.L. Nair Charity Hospital. The
             Senior Counsel also submits that in any case the accused-
             applicants are graduates in medical discipline and that they can
             prosecute their post graduation at any time in future even after
 C           the conclusion of the trial and therefore, there is no pressing
             urgency to allow the applicants to enter into the premises of B.Y.L.
             Nair Charity Hospital to complete their post-graduation”
              9.1. The High Court by its order dated 21.02.2020 relaxed condition
       no.(iii). It also recalled condition no.(v)as in its view, suspension of
 D     licences as ordered by the High Court was without jurisdiction and that
       in terms of Section 22(1) of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965
       the action in that behalf could be taken by the Council. The High Court
       had issued notice to the Medical Council of India to explore the possibility
       as to whether the Appellants could seek migration to any other Colleges.
       However, in view of the submission by the State, the High Court refused
 E     to relax condition no.(iv). It observed in paras 10 to 12 as under:-
             “10. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant seeks
             expeditious trial. It is a matter of record that most of the witnesses
             are students who are prosecuting their Post Graduation in B.Y.L.
             Nair Charity Hospital and after completion of Post Graduation
 F           they may not reside in Bombay and therefore, it would be
             necessary to expedite the trial accordingly. The learned Special
             Judge (Special Court SC and ST) seized with Sessions Case No.7
             of 2019 shall make every endeavour to conclude the recording of
             evidence as far as possible within ten months from the date of
 G           framing of charge.
             11. Needless to reiterate that the applicants herein would be at
             liberty to pursue their further education after the conclusion of
             the trial.

 H
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                              1019
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      12. This Court had also issued notice to Medical Council of India       A
      to explore the possibility as to whether the present applicants could
      seek admission in any other college. The learned Counsel Mr.
      Gole has drawn the attention of this Court to the regulations of
      Maharashtra Medical Council of India that the applicants cannot
      migrate to any other college for Post Graduation since they were
                                                                              B
      doing their Post Graduation in B.Y.L. Nair Charity Hospital in
      Maharashtra. It is submitted that migration is not permissible.”
      10. In tune with the withdrawal of condition no.(v) by the High
Court, the Maharashtra Medical Council by communication dated
16.03.2020 revoked the suspension of Dr. Ankita Kailash Khandelwal
and Dr. Bhakti Arvind Mehare and set aside the earlier order dated            C
10.01.2020.
       11. These appeals, thus, challenge non-relaxation of condition no.
(iv) by the High Court.
       12. While issuing notice on 09.07.2020 following order was passed      D
by this Court:-
      “Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
      petitioners submitted inter alia that;
      (i) the petitioners have completed two years out of three years’
      course and that they be allowed to complete the entire course.          E
      He stated that normally the students must go back to the same
      college but if permitting the petitioners to resume their studies in
      the same college is not feasible, the petitioners be accommodated
      in any other college to enable them to complete their studies.
            In support of the submission, reliance is placed on two           F
      examples cited by the petitioner at page “C” of the list of dates
      and synopsis.
      (ii) the observation in para 10 of the order pre-suppose that the
      charges had to be framed. It was submitted that the matter be left
      for the consideration of the concerned Court whether the charges        G
      need to be framed or not.”
      Notice was confined to these submissions. Two examples given
at page ‘C’ of the list of dates and synopsis were:-

                                                                              H
1020            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A           “The Petitioners have recently after passing of the impugned
             judgment on enquiries learnt that last year or so, various students
             (around 30 of them perusing PG course, including Gynaecology,
             from one ESI-PGIMSR College, Andheri, which had a fire, have
             been accommodated in Grant Medical College, J.J Hospital,
             Byculla. The same was done by the State of Maharashtra with
 B
             the consensus of the Medical Council of India.
             That the Petitioners have also recently learnt that the passing of
             the impugned Judgment and final order that students of their very
             college had also been accommodated in another hospital i.e. Sion
             Hospital, when there was a blast in their MRI center and the
 C           same continued for about 6 months, till the said center was again
             made functional.”
              13. Thereafter, the order dated 11.08.2020 passed by this Court
       recorded the submissions advanced on behalf of the Medical Council of
       India and the Complainant as under:-
 D
             “Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Advocate for the MCI submitted
             that migration would not be permissible and two instances adverted
             to by the petitioners, namely, of (i) College at Jhajjar Haryana and
             (ii) ESI-PGIMSR College, Andheri at Mumbai were in the peculiar
             facts and circumstances of those cases. He submitted that in the
 E           first case, the College itself was closed and therefore the entire
             batch of the students was accommodated in different colleges
             while in the second case there was a fire at the institution and
             therefore the students were temporarily shifted to another
             institution.
 F           Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the
             issue of migration was completely unrelated to the matter
             concerning bail and the conditions imposed at the stage of grant
             of bail; that in case the petitioners were denied migration, the
             remedy was in taking appropriate proceedings in a manner known
 G           to law and that since the Regulations were very clear that no
             migration would be permissible, the Court ought not to pass any
             orders on the plea of migration.”
              By same order, this Court also impleaded B.Y.L. Nair Charity
       Hospital; and sought information from the State as regards the status of
       trial.
 H
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                                  1021
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

       14. The stands taken by the respective parties in their affidavits-        A
in-reply are to the following effect:-
      A) Deputy Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department,
      Government of Maharashtra stated:-
          “9. It is submitted that, petitioners are holding MBBS Degree
          and they are at liberty to practise their medical profession.           B
          Petitioners can prosecute their Post Graduation at any time in
          future after conclusion of the trial, therefore, there is no pressing
          urgency to allow petitioners to permit their migration /
          accommodation in any other college / hospital. It is submitted
          that, Hon’ble High Court has already expedited trial in the             C
          present case and directed that, trial should be concluded within
          10 months from the date of framing of charges.”
      B) The Dean of the College and the Hospital relied upon the
      Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education
      Regulations, 2000 (‘2000 Regulations’, for short) framed by the             D
      Medical Council of India, to submit that no migration/transfer of
      student undergoing any Post Graduate Degree/Diploma/Super
      Speciality course is permitted. In the additional affidavit it was
      asserted:-
          “7. All the candidates joining the post-graduate training               E
          programme shall work as ‘Full Time Residents’ during the period
          of training and shall attend not less than 80% (Eighty percent)
          of the imparted training during each Academic Term of six
          months including assignments assessed full time responsibilities
          and participation in all facets of the educational process.”
                                                                                  F
      C) The Complainant placed on record copy of the Order of
      Suspension dated 27.05.2019 and the provisions of 1999 Act and
      Regulations of the Medical Council of India on the issue of
      prohibition of ragging in Medical Colleges.
      15. One of the submissions urged by the Appellants is that the
                                                                                  G
observations of the High Court in the last sentence of para 10 are capable
of being construed as a direction to the Special Judge seized of the
matter to frame the charges and thereafter conclude the proceedings
within ten months. It is submitted that the trial is still at the stage of
compliance of Sections 207 and 208 of the Code and that the Appellants
                                                                                  H
1022               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     would be within their rights to file an application for discharge. However,
       the last sentence in para 10 may hamper consideration of their application
       for discharge.
              We do not think that said sentence can be considered as a mandate
       to the Special Judge to frame charges. For the sake of clarity, we direct
 B     that the matter shall be considered purely on merits at the stage of
       consideration whether charges need to be framed or not. If any application
       for discharge is preferred by the appellants, the same be considered in
       accordance with law.
              16. We now come to the submissions of Mr. Siddharth Luthra,
 C     learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants which are to the following
       effect:-
                i) Relying on the decisions of this Court in Sumit Mehta vs. State
                (NCT of Delhi)2 and Kunal Kumar Tiwari alias Kunal Kumar
                vs. State of Bihar and another3, it is submitted that in terms of
 D              Section 437(3) of the Code, the courts undoubtedly are entitled to
                impose conditions which are necessary “otherwise in the interest
                of justice”. However, as held by this Court, such conditions
                cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or extend beyond the ends of the
                provision.

 E              ii) Condition no.(iv), as imposed, is resulting in negation of the
                rights of the Appellants to continue their studies in the College
                and thus directly infringes their rights guaranteed under Article 21
                of the Constitution of India.
                iii) The Appellants are not insisting that they be allowed to go
 F              back to the College,if the Appellants can be allowed transfer/
                migration to any other college in the city of Mumbai. Apart from
                the College, there are two other Medical Colleges run by the
                Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and one more College
                run by State of Maharashtra located in Mumbai and there are
                various other Health Care Centres and Hospitals. The Appellants
 G              can be attached to any of these institutions so that they can
                complete their course of study.
                iv) The Appellants have completed two years of three years’ course
                and what they may be required to put in for the third year of
       2
           (2013) 15 SCC 570
 H     3
           (2018) 16 SCC 74
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                             1023
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      course will be just about nine months of actual residency as the       A
      students are normally entitled to study leave for three months.
      Thus, it would be a question of accommodation for nine months.
      v) Out of the witnesses cited in the chargesheet to be examined
      by the prosecution, there are 12 Post Graduate students who are
      not permanently in employment of the College and the Hospital.         B
      Out of those 12 witnesses, 5 have already completed their course
      and passed out in May, 2020, while other 5 will pass out in May,
      2021 and remaining 2 students will pass out in May 2022. All the
      other witnesses are permanently in employment of the College
      and the Hospital.
                                                                             C
      vi) In any case, as observed by the High Court in the order dated
      09.08.2019, statements under Section 164 of the Code of all
      material witnesses having been recorded, there would be no
      occasion even to apprehend any attempt on part of the Appellants
      to influence any of the witnesses.
                                                                             D
      vii) By whatever modality that the Court deems appropriate to
      direct, an avenue be created whereunder the Appellants are
      allowed to pursue and complete their course of study. The stand
      taken by the Deputy Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs
      Department, Government of Maharashtra, which was reflected
      in para 11 of the order under appeal, is not correct and the           E
      suggested course of action will completely jeopardise the career
      of the Appellants.
      viii) The Order of Suspension dated 27.05.2019 was purely based
      on the FIR lodged against the Appellants. The suspension of two
      of the Appellants by the Maharashtra Medical Council was again         F
      based on direction (v) issued by the High Court in order dated
      09.08.2019. In any case, said suspension by the Maharashtra
      Medical Council now stands revoked.
       17. It is submitted by Mr. Sachin Patil, learned Advocate for the
State that this Court had initially issued notice to see whether the         G
Appellants could be transferred or allowed migration to any other college/
institution and that two examples relied upon by the Appellants are
completely distinguishable. He has submitted that the Suspension Order
dated 27.05.2019 issued under the signature of the Dean of the Hospital
and the College still being in existence and force, the Appellants cannot
                                                                             H
1024             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     be allowed to go back to their course of study. It is further submitted that
       though the statements of more than 100 witnesses were recorded during
       investigation, the prosecution may confine itself to examination of only
       60 witnesses and with the observations by the High Court expediting the
       process of trial, the trial will get over at an early date.
 B            18. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Advocate for the Medical Council
       of India has submitted that for a student undergoing Post Graduation
       course, he/she must be attached to a particular Guide and the student is
       not allowed to change the Guide during the course. It is submitted that
       the examples relied upon by the Appellants were examples of an
       extraordinary situation where the entire batch was permitted to be shifted
 C     to another college under the orders of the Medical Council of India. It is
       reiterated that under the Regulations in question, migration to any other
       college is not permissible at all. On the question whether there is any
       time limit for completion of Post Graduation course, Mr. Sharma has
       responded that there used to be a limit of five years within which the
 D     course had to be completed but now there is no such outer limit. He
       further stated that once a candidate is registered for a Post Graduate
       course, he/she cannot takeup any other course while such registration is
       continuing.
               19. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for
 E     the Complainant has submitted that the Order of Suspension dated
       27.05.2019 was based on the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee and
       that neither there was any challenge to the Order of Suspension nor was
       said suspension revoked. It is submitted that in the face of suspension by
       the College, the Appellants cannot be allowed to resume their course of
       study. It is further submitted that once the Order of Suspension is in
 F     force, in terms of Regulation 8.1 of 2009 Regulations, the Appellants
       would not be allowed to attend any class and have academic privileges.
       It is submitted that the Complainant had not challenged the order granting
       bail as the order came with the condition that the Appellants would not
       be allowed to enter the College. Going by the apprehension expressed
 G     by Dr. Ganesh Shinde, if the Appellants are allowed to go back to the
       College, there is a possibility of witnesses getting influenced.
             20. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
       the College and the Hospital has submitted that as per oral instructions
       received by him, the Order of Suspension was based on the opinion of
 H     the Anti- Ragging Committee.
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                                   1025
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

        21. We may now consider the relevant statutory provisions:-                A
        A) Sections 4, 5 and 6 of 1999 Act are to the following effect:-
        “4. Whoever directly or indirectly commits, participates in, abets
        or propagates ragging within or outside any educational institution
        shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term
        which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to a fine           B
        which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
        5. Any student convicted of an offence under Section 4 shall be
        dismissed from the educational institution and such student shall
        not be admitted in any other educational institution for a period of
        five years from the date of order of such dismissal.                       C

        6.     (1) Whenever any student or, as the case may be, the
               parent or guardian, or a teacher of an educational institution
               complains, in writing, of ragging to the head of the
               educational institution, the head of that educational institution
               shall, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions, within        D
               seven days of the receipt of the complaint, enquire into
               the matter mentioned in the complaint and if, prima facie,
               it is found true, suspend the student who is accused of the
               offence, and shall, immediately forward the complaint to
               the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area in which       E
               the educational institution is situated, for further action.
               (2) Where, on enquiry by the head of the educational
               institution, it is proved that there is no substance, prima
               facie, in the complaint received under sub-section (1), he
               shall intimate the fact, in writing to the complainant.             F
               (3) The decision of the head of the educational institution
               that the student has indulged in ragging under sub-section
               (1), shall be final.”
        B) Relevant parts of clauses 13.2 and 13.3 of 2000 Regulations
are:-                                                                              G
        “All the candidates joining the Post Graduate training programme
        shall work as ‘Full Time Residents’ during the period of training
        and shall attend not less than 80% (Eighty percent) of the imparted
        training during each academic year including assignments, assessed
        full time responsibilities and participation in all facets of the          H
        educational process.”
1026            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A           MIGRATION
             Under no circumstances, Migration/transfer of student undergoing
             any Post Graduate Degree/Diploma/Super Speciality course shall
             be permitted by any University/Authority.”
             C) Paras 7 and 8 of the Medical Council of India (Prevention and
 B     Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges/Institutions) Regulations, 2009
       (‘2009 Regulations’, for short) read as under:-
                 “7. Regulatory Measures – The inspecting / visiting
                 committees of MCI shall cross verify that the medical college/
                 institution has strictly complied with the anti ragging measures
 C               and has a blemishless record in terms of there being no incident
                 of ragging during the impending period (i.e. from earlier
                 inspection) or otherwise.
                 8. Awardable Punishments

 D                  8.1 At the Medical College/Institution level:
                    Depending upon the nature and gravity of the offence as
                    established by the Anti-Ragging Committee of the institution,
                    the possible punishments for those found guilty of ragging
                    at the institution level shall be anyone or any combination
                    of the following:
 E
                    8.1.1 Suspension from attending classes and academic
                    privileges.
                    8.1.2 Withholding/ withdrawing scholarship/ fellowship and
                    other benefits
 F                  8.1.3 Debarring from appearing in any test/examination or
                    other evaluation Process.
                    8.1.4 Withholding results
                    8.1.5 Debarring from representing the institution in any
 G                  regional, national or international meet, tournament, youth
                    festival, etc.
                    8.1.6 Suspension/expulsion from the hostel
                    8.1.7 Cancellation of admission
                    8.1.8 Rustication from the institution for period ranging from
 H                  1 to 4 semesters
 ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                                 1027
 MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

             8.1.9 Expulsion from the institution and consequent debarring      A
             from admission to any other institution for a specific period.
             8.1.10 Fine of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1 lakh.
             8.1.11 Collective punishment: When the persons committing
             or abetting the crime of ragging are not identified, the
             institution shall resort to collective punishment.                 B

         8.2 Penal consequences for the heads of the institutions/
         administration of the institution who do not take timely
         steps in the prevention of ragging and punishing those
         who rag.
                                                                                C
         The authorities of the institution particularly the Head of the
         institution, shall be responsible to ensure that no incident of
         ragging takes place in the institution. In case any incident of
         ragging takes place, the Head shall take prompt and appropriate
         action against the person(s) whose dereliction of duty lead to
         the incident. The authority designated to appoint the Head             D
         shall, in its turn, take prompt and appropriate action against the
         Head.
         In addition to the penal consequences, departmental enquiries
         be initiated against such heads institutions / members of the
         administration / faculty members / non-teaching staff, who             E
         display an apathetic or insensitive attitude towards complaints
         of ragging.”
      22. We may also note the relevant portions of the decisions that
were relied upon.
                                                                                F
      A) In Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2, it was observed:-
      “11. While exercising power under Section 438 of the Code, the
      court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual’s
      right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police.
      For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1),
      appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as          G
      to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such
      conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering
      the investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to
      the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be
      countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of          H
1028      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     the court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost
       restraint.
       12. The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is
       proved. As a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the
       fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under
 B     Article 21 of the Constitution.
       13. We also clarify that while granting anticipatory bail, the courts
       are expected to consider and keep in mind the nature and gravity
       of accusation, antecedents of the applicant, namely, about his
       previous involvement in such offence and the possibility of the
 C     applicant to flee from justice. It is also the duty of the court to
       ascertain whether accusation has been made with the object of
       injuring or humiliating him by having him so arrested. It is needless
       to mention that the courts are duty-bound to impose appropriate
       conditions as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the
       Code.
 D
       14. Thus, in the case on hand, fixed deposit of Rs 1,00,00,000 for
       a period of six months in the name of the complainant and to keep
       the FDR with the investigating officer as a condition precedent
       for grant of anticipatory bail is evidently onerous and unreasonable.
       It must be remembered that the court has not even come to the
 E     conclusion whether the allegations made are true or not which
       can only be ascertained after completion of trial. Certainly, in no
       words are we suggesting that the power to impose a condition of
       this nature is totally excluded, even in cases of cheating, electricity
       pilferage, white-collar crimes or chit fund scams, etc.
 F     15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be
       regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose
       any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be
       interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts
       permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic
 G     sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of
       the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do
       not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.”
       B) In Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar and Another3, this
       Court observed:-
 H
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                                  1029
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      “5. Today on behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the             A
      High Court while passing the aforesaid order for anticipatory bail,
      a condition like the one imposed could not have been imposed.
      …     …     …
      8. Before we analyse the case at hand, first a word on
      interpretation. It is well-settled legal proposition that in interpreting   B
      a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the
      purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or
      object is expressly stated in the Act or not) should be preferred to
      an interpretation that would not promote the object.
      9. There is no dispute that clause (c) of Section 437(3) allows             C
      courts to impose such conditions in the interest of justice. We are
      aware that palpably such wordings are capable of accepting
      broader meaning. But such conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful
      or extend beyond the ends of the provision. The phrase “interest
      of justice” as used under the clause (c) of Section 437(3) means            D
      “good administration of justice” or “advancing the trial process”
      and inclusion of broader meaning should be shunned because of
      purposive interpretation.
      10. Coming back to the case at hand, from the perusal of the
      impugned order it is clear that the court exceeded its jurisdiction         E
      in imposing such arbitrary conditions. Some of the conditions
      imposed are highly onerous and are absurd. Such onerous
      anticipatory bail conditions are alien and cannot be sustained in
      the eye of the law. The conditions imposed appear to have no
      nexus with the good administration of justice or advancing the
      trial process, rather it is an overzealous exercise in utter disregard      F
      to the very purpose of the criminal justice system.”
       23. At the outset, it must be stated that notice was issued to seeif
going back to the College would not be feasible, whether the Appellants
could be allowed migration to any other college/institution so that both
the elements viz. (i) relating to the career and prospects of the Appellants      G
and (ii) the interest of the prosecution in keeping the witnesses away
from the possibility of influence by the Appellants;would get satisfied
and taken care of. Therefore, focussing attention on two instances given
by the Appellants, responses were called for. However, as the situation
now obtains, the stand of the Medical Council of India is clear that “under
                                                                                  H
1030            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     no circumstances migration is permissible” for students undergoing
       Post Graduate medical courses. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Advocate,
       has gone to the extent of emphasizing that the students who register
       themselves for Post Graduate medical courses, have to be under a
       particular Guide and complete the entire course under the supervision of
       that Guide alone. The matter, therefore, has travelled far from what was
 B
       noted and noticed in the beginning and now the respondents have placed
       the Order of Suspension of the Appellants on record and insist that so
       long as the Order of Suspension is in operation, the Appellants cannot be
       allowed to go back to their course of study.
             24. We are, thus, called upon to consider the competing claims in
 C     such a way that the individual rights of the Appellants to pursue their
       courses of study are secured and, at the same time, the conduct of
       prosecution also runs smoothly and without any interference and possibility
       of witnesses getting won over. In that view, it must be noted:-
             a) The Appellants before us are three lady doctors who are
 D              pursuing Post Graduate medical course (M.D.) in Gynaecology
                and Obstetrics and have completed two years out of three
                years’ of course. The course is well coveted and considered
                to be a specialty course in that field. The Appellants do not
                appear to be original residents of Mumbai and, as such, it
 E              cannot be said that they or their families have deep-rooted
                presence in Mumbai.
             b) As noticed by this Court in Sumit Mehta2, if the law presumes
                an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved, the Appellants
                as presumably innocent persons, are entitled to all the
 F              fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed
                under Article 21 of the Constitution and are entitled to pursue
                their course of study so long as exercise of said right does not
                hamper smooth conduct and progress of the prosecution.
             c) The stand taken by the State through the affidavit filed by the
 G              Deputy Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department,
                Government of Maharashtra, is that the Appellants can
                prosecute their Post Graduate course in future after conclusion
                of the trial.Said submission and the observation by the High
                Court in para 11 of the order, in our view, arenot correct.Even
                a convict is allowed to have academic pursuits while
 H              undergoing sentence and develop his potential as a human
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                              1031
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

          being to the fullest. The State apparatus must facilitate such      A
          pursuits rather than hamper any attempts in that behalf. The
          Appellants, therefore, by any standard, are entitled to continue
          their courses of study subject to the caveat expressed earlier.
      d) It is a matter of record that as observed by the High Court in
         para 13 of its order dated 09.08.2019, the statements of all         B
         material witnesses have been recorded under Section 164 of
         the Code. In fact, the High Court went to the extent of ensuring
         that such statements are recorded so that witnesses could not
         be won over by the Appellants after they were enlarged on
         bail. Therefore, the apprehension that the witnesses could be
         influenced is not quite correct.                                     C

      e) The majority of witnesses to be examined by the prosecution
         appear to be in permanent employment of the College and the
         Hospital. It will be difficult to imagine that three lady doctors
         who do not otherwise belong to Mumbai will be able to
         influence any such witnesses by their mere presence in the           D
         College and the Hospital.
      f) The Appellants require to put in the last year of their course
         and as stated by Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate,
         the actual period that they need to undergo by way of training
         is only nine months.                                                 E

      It is, thus, a question of putting those nine months in one scale and
see whether the other scale becomes so weighty that the request to
allow them to pursue their courses must be rejected.
      25. Another issue raised is about the Order of Suspension passed        F
against the Appellants. The facts on record indicate that the report of
the Anti-Ragging Committee and the Order of Suspension were issued
on the same date i.e. on 27.05.2019. The submission of Mr. Sidharth
Luthra, learned Senior Advocate, that the Order of Suspension was not
based on the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee merits acceptance
because of following features viz. (a) the outward number for the Order       G
of Suspension is NDN/172 while that of the report of Anti-Ragging
Committee is NDN/183, which means the Order of Suspension was
issued earlier to the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee; (b) both the
communications are under the signature of the Dean of the College and
the Hospital and yet, the Order of Suspension does not make any
                                                                              H
1032            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     reference to the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee; (c) the Order
       of Suspension is based purely on the registration of FIR registered against
       the Appellants which is why “taking cognizance of this” the Order of
       Suspension was passed; and (d) when a request for revocation of
       suspension was made, it was rejected on 25.10.2019 because of order
       dated 09.08.2019 of the High court and not because of the report of the
 B
       Anti-Ragging Committee.
              26. The relevant provisions of 1999 Act show that if any student
       is found guilty of ragging or abetment of ragging, he can, on conviction
       be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years and by
       virtue of Section 5, any student convicted of such offence shall be
 C     dismissed from the educational institution and cannot be admitted in any
       other educational institution for a period of five years.We are not
       concerned with any eventuality arising or occurring by virtue of Sections
       4 and 5 of 1999 Act.
              To take appropriate action under Section 6(1) of 1999 Act,the
 D     concerned head of the educational institution must prima facie be satisfied
       that the allegations against the student have been found to be true,
       whereafter, an order of suspension can be passed.
              As stated hereinabove, the Order of Suspension does not even
       record any such finding or prima facie view. As a matter of fact, the
 E     Order of Suspension was not passed by virtue of power entrusted under
       Section 6(1) of 1999 Act but was based on the grounds that the Appellants
       were creating hurdles in the enquiry by the police and that there was an
       FIR against them. We, thus, conclude that the Order of Suspension is
       not referable to Section 6(1) of 1999 Act.
 F           Apart from Section 6(1) as aforesaid, no other statutory provision
       has been referred to or relied upon.
             27. Para 8.1 of 2009 Regulations framed by the Medical Council
       of India is applicable to cases where a student has been ‘found guilty
       of ragging’ which presupposes valid exercise of power. The effects
 G     contemplated by said Para 8.1 come into operation only thereafter.
            28. In our considered view, neither the provisions of 1999 Act nor
       2009 Regulationsget attracted to the present case.
             29. We are, therefore, left with a bare Suspension Order dated
       27.05.2019 which was not based on the provisions of 1999 Act. A
 H
  ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF                                1033
  MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

submission is raised by Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate,            A
appearing for the Complainant that in a matter arising from the request
for relaxation of condition, no collateral attack on the Suspension Order
be permitted. It is submitted by her and Mr. Sachin Patil, learned Advocate
for the State that the Appellants are free to challenge the Order of
Suspension and so long as that order is not set aside, the Appellants
                                                                                B
cannot be allowed to come back to the College or the Hospital.
      30. We do not find any merit in the aforesaid submissions.
Relaxation sought in respect of condition no. (iv) takes within itsfold all
submissions with respect to matters arising from the registration of the
crime and steps undertaken pursuant thereto. Since the Order of
Suspension was passed purely as a result of registration of crime and           C
did not have any roots in statutory powers conferred under Section 6 of
1999 Act,in our view, this Court can certainly grant redress to the
Appellants.
        31. While balancing the competing claims, in our view, the Appellants
must be allowed to go back to their courses of study otherwise the              D
pendency of prosecution against them will add further penalty in the
form of prejudicing their career. Any such adverse impact will negate
their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
       32. Considering the matter in its entirety and especially when the
Appellants have to undergo training under the same guide and in the             E
same institution where they were registered, in our considered view,
ends of justice would be met if condition no. (iv) as laid down by the
High Court is relaxed and the Appellants are permitted to go back to the
College and the Hospital to pursue their studies, subject to the following
conditions:-                                                                    F
      i) The Appellants shall not, in any manner, influence or even
         attempt to influence any of the witnesses.
      ii) The Appellants shall present themselves on each of the dates
          that the matter gets posted before the Trial Court, unless their
          presence is specifically exempted.                                    G
      iii) If it is permissible, and subject to the appropriate permission
           from the Dean of the College and the Hospital, the Appellants
           may not reside in the quarters allocated to the residents in the
           College and the Hospital. However, if the registration as Post
                                                                                H
1034            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A               Graduate students requires the Appellants to be full time
                 residents in the College and the Hospital, then the Appellants
                 shall do so.
             iv) The Appellants shall avail study leave, as suggested by Mr.
                 Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate, so that their actual
 B               period of stay inside the College and the Hospital gets reduced
                 to the maximum possible level.
             v) If there be any holiday or vacation and it is permissible for the
                residents to be outside the College and the Hospital, the
                Appellants shall avail that and keep themselves away from the
 C              Hospital and the College.
             vi) If there be any untoward incident as apprehended by Dr. Ganesh
                 Shinde, Head of Department, or even likelihood of such
                 incident, the concerned authorities shall immediately report to
                 the Police Station of the area and ensure that the life and liberty
 D               of everyone including the Appellants are well protected.
              33. Subject to the conditions, as stated hereinabove, the Appellants
       shall be permitted to re-enter the College and the Hospital to pursue
       their courses of study. This Order shall come into effect at the beginning
       of the second term of academic session 2020-2021 and if such term
 E     hasalready begun, it shall come into effect from 12.10.2020.It is made
       clear that the Appellants shall be permitted to pursue their courses of
       study regardless of the Order of Suspension dated 27.05.2019.
             34. Copies of this Judgment shall be sent to the Trial Court and
       the concerned Police Station for record and compliance.
 F           35. The appeals stand allowed in aforementioned terms.


       Divya Pandey                                                  Appeals allowed.



 G




 H