- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court won't interfere in ex-BARC CEO's transfer from hospital to prison
Bombay HC won't interfere in ex-BARC CEO's transfer from hospital to prison Justice Prakash D. Naik on 22 January 2021, refused to intervene in the case of transfer of former Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) CEO Partho Dasgupta from JJ Hospital, Mumbai to the Taloja Central Prison (Prison) after his discharge from the hospital Justice Prakash D. Naik, while hearing an...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Bombay HC won't interfere in ex-BARC CEO's transfer from hospital to prison
Justice Prakash D. Naik on 22 January 2021, refused to intervene in the case of transfer of former Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) CEO Partho Dasgupta from JJ Hospital, Mumbai to the Taloja Central Prison (Prison) after his discharge from the hospital Justice Prakash D. Naik, while hearing an application, refused to intervene after Chief Public Prosecutor Deepak Thakare assured the Bombay High Court (HC) that the prison's medical officers would continue treating Dasgupta according to the JJ Hospital's discharge note.
Partho Nirmal Dasgupta (applicant) moved to the HC after the Mumbai Sessions Court rejected his bail plea related to the Television Rating Points Scam (TRP Scam). An application was filed before the HC for seeking applicant's release on bail. Pending the disposal of the application, Dasgupta sought interim bail for two weeks or to be transferred to PD Hinduja Hospital for his treatment.
Counsel Arjun Singh Thakur, appearing on behalf of Dasgupta, argued that the urgency for moving the application arose as the former CEO was being transferred to prison although he was unfit. He also submitted a video clipping showing that the applicant was taken in a stretcher. Thakur submitted that if the applicant had been fit then there would be no need for a stretcher.
Thakur pressed the HC for the applicant's transfer to the private hospital on account of his ill-health. It was further urged that the prayers would become infructuous if the applicant would be taken back to the prison.
The prayer of the applicant was opposed by Thakare on the ground that Dasgupta was brought to JJ Hospital from the prison and since he was discharged from the hospital, he was being shifted back to the prison now.
It was further stated by Thakare that as per the procedure, the prison medical officer would examine the applicant and if deemed necessary then he would be shifted back to JJ Hospital.
Justice Naik concluded that in this matter interference of the HC was not necessary. However, the Court directed the State to submit all the relevant medical records of the applicant pertaining to his admission to the JJ Hospital and his subsequent examination by the Taloja medical officer on the next date of hearing.
The application has been posted for hearing by the HC on 25 January 2021.