top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

YouTuber challenges FIR, LoC in HC

Mumbai : The Bombay High Court issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by UK-based medico and YouTuber, Dr. Sangram Patil, seeking to quash a Mumbai Police FIR and revoking a Look Out Circular in a criminal case lodged against him, on Thursday.   Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, who heard the matter with preliminary submissions from both sides, sought a response from the state government and posted the matter for Feb. 4.   Maharashtra Advocate-General Milind Sathe informed the court...

YouTuber challenges FIR, LoC in HC

Mumbai : The Bombay High Court issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by UK-based medico and YouTuber, Dr. Sangram Patil, seeking to quash a Mumbai Police FIR and revoking a Look Out Circular in a criminal case lodged against him, on Thursday.   Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, who heard the matter with preliminary submissions from both sides, sought a response from the state government and posted the matter for Feb. 4.   Maharashtra Advocate-General Milind Sathe informed the court that the state would file its reply within a week in the matter.   Indian-origin Dr. Patil, hailing from Jalgaon, is facing a criminal case here for posting allegedly objectionable content involving Bharatiya Janata Party leaders on social media.   After his posts on a FB page, ‘Shehar Vikas Aghadi’, a Mumbai BJP media cell functionary lodged a criminal complaint following which the NM Joshi Marg Police registered a FIR (Dec. 18, 2025) and subsequently issued a LoC against Dr. Patil, restricting his travels.   The complainant Nikhil Bhamre filed the complaint in December 2025, contending that Dr. Patil on Dec. 14 posted offensive content intended to spread ‘disinformation and falsehoods’ about the BJP and its leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.   Among others, the police invoked BNSS Sec. 353(2) that attracts a 3-year jail term for publishing or circulating statements or rumours through electronic media with intent to promote enmity or hatred between communities.   Based on the FIR, Dr. Patil was detained and questioned for 15 hours when he arrived with his wife from London at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (Jan. 10), and again prevented from returning to Manchester, UK on Jan. 19 in view of the ongoing investigations.   On Wednesday (Jan. 21) Dr. Patil recorded his statement before the Mumbai Police and now he has moved the high court. Besides seeking quashing of the FIR and the LoC, he has sought removal of his name from the database imposing restrictions on his international travels.   Through his Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, the medico has sought interim relief in the form of a stay on further probe by Crime Branch-III and coercive action, restraint on filing any charge-sheet during the pendency of the petition and permission to go back to the UK.   Pasbola submitted to the court that Dr. Patil had voluntarily travelled from the UK to India and was unaware of the FIR when he landed here. Sathe argued that Patil had appeared in connection with other posts and was not fully cooperating with the investigators.

The Silence of the Lambs

A chilling trial in Berlin revives memories of Germany’s most notorious medical murders and raises troubling questions about end-of-life care oversight.

Germany is once again confronting the spectre of a caregiver turned killer. A 40-year-old palliative care doctor, known only as ‘Johannes M’ under Germany’s strict privacy laws, stands accused of murdering 15 patients over a span of nearly three years. The grave charges include 15 counts of premeditated murder with “base motives.”


The shock lies not just in the number of deaths, but in the chilling method and motive: prosecutors say Johannes M injected a cocktail of anaesthetics and muscle relaxants into unsuspecting patients, asphyxiating them silently in their homes. He then allegedly set some of those homes on fire to cover his tracks. Germany, known for its rigorous medical regulations and somber postwar soul-searching, is no stranger to the horror of medical professionals who violate their oath to heal.


The name Niels Högel still casts a long shadow. He was a nurse convicted in 2019 of killing 85 patients with lethal injections between 2000 and 2005, thus making him the most prolific serial killer in modern German history. Högel’s case prompted deep institutional introspection. Yet little seems to have changed structurally in the intervening years.


The prosecutor, Philipp Meyhöfer, told the Berlin state court that Johannes M conducted house visits “with the intention of killing his patients without their knowledge or consent,” motivated by a need to assert control over life and death. Two victims were killed on the same day. Five are believed to have died in fires he set, a macabre twist that finally alerted a suspicious colleague.


His motive remains shrouded in mystery. He has declined to speak in court or submit to psychiatric evaluation. The prosecution seeks not just a life sentence but also a finding of “particularly serious guilt.” That would make it possible to keep him imprisoned indefinitely and ban him from ever practising medicine again. Meanwhile, investigators are combing through at least 70 other suspicious deaths, including that of his mother-in-law in Poland.


The parallels to Högel are not merely sensationalist. Both men operated in the quiet spaces of the healthcare system, trusted with life’s most fragile moments. Both were allegedly driven by some obscure psychological need to manipulate death, unchecked by oversight or professional accountability.


Palliative care is, by its nature, intimate, subjective and emotionally complex. It exists in a legal and moral grey zone where doctors are trusted to make difficult decisions on behalf of dying patients. That very trust makes it ripe for abuse. Germany’s strict medical privacy rules and decentralised home-care model, designed to preserve patient dignity, may inadvertently shield malfeasance. When institutions rely more on honour systems than on rigorous data-sharing and monitoring, malevolent actors can flourish in the cracks.


The legal framework in Germany has lagged behind medical ethics debates. Euthanasia remains a contentious issue. Assisted suicide was decriminalised in 2020 following a constitutional court ruling, but no cohesive law has yet been enacted to regulate it. That vacuum may create opportunities for confusion or exploitation. In this case, however, no suggestion has been made that the patients wanted to die. On the contrary, the prosecution asserts that none were expected to pass away imminently.


The trial, expected to stretch until 2026, will likely prompt new scrutiny of how palliative care is delivered and monitored. Yet whether it leads to real reform is far from certain. After the Högel case, calls were made for better death certification, mandatory post-mortem reviews and a centralised registry for unusual medical incidents. Few of those safeguards have been implemented. Cost, bureaucracy, and a reluctance to question doctors too aggressively remain obstacles.


Ultimately, the horror lies not just in the alleged actions of one man, but in the structures that failed to detect him. In a system built on trust, even one rogue doctor can wreak untold havoc before the alarm bells ring. The German state must reckon not only with Johannes M, but with the ghosts it allowed to slip past.

Comments


bottom of page