Read Time: 08 minutes
The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia held, “complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix about one and half year after the alleged incident, and presently there is no cogent evidence to show that the present petitioner conducted any ultrasound or abortion on the prosecutrix. That being so, I find no reason to curtail the liberty of the petitioner, who is a lady doctor”.
The Delhi High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a female doctor who operated a hospital in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 123, 64, 87, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case pertained to allegations regarding the medical termination of a pregnancy following an alleged rape.
Additional Public Prosecutor Priyanka Dalal did not allege that the doctor acted in furtherance of a common intention with the accused rapists. The allegations against her arose from the prosecutrix's claim that, upon discovering her pregnancy, she was taken to the doctor’s hospital by the sister of one of the accused. At the hospital, the doctor allegedly conducted an ultrasound to confirm the pregnancy and administered pills that resulted in an abortion.
During the investigation, the doctor denied any involvement, asserting that the prosecutrix never visited her hospital. The investigating officer conducted searches at the hospital but did not find any records indicating that the prosecutrix underwent an ultrasound or received medical treatment there. The hospital’s ultrasound machine hard disk was seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), with the report still pending.
Advocate Aarushi Singh, representing the doctor, argued that the most serious charge against her fell under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which constituted a bailable offense. Additionally, Advocate Singh emphasized the absence of any direct evidence linking her to the alleged crime.
APP Dalal contended that the prosecutrix’s presence at the hospital was corroborated by photographs retrieved from a mobile phone belonging to one of the accused, along with call detail records (CDRs) indicating communication between the doctor and the accused’s sister. APP Dalal further noted that a chargesheet had already been filed against two accused individuals, while a supplementary chargesheet against the doctor would depend on the FSL report and further investigation.
The complainant’s counsel reiterated the prosecution's claims, maintaining that the doctor had administered abortion pills and conducted the procedure. However, the court observed inconsistencies in the statements, noting that the prosecutrix initially alleged in the FIR that the accused administered the abortion pills, while this discrepancy was introduced only in a later statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.
The court also took into account that the prosecutrix filed the complaint approximately one and a half years after the alleged incident. Despite extensive searches, no documentary evidence was found to confirm that she received medical treatment at the doctor’s hospital.
“As regards the CDRs to show location of the prosecutrix in the hospital of the present petitioner, it is admitted position that prosecutrix is residing in the neighborhood of the hospital. As regards the telephone calls between the present petitioner and sister of accused Rohit, there are only three phone calls. But beyond that, there is nothing to suggest complicity of the present petitioner in any offence”, the court noted.
Additionally, the prosecution relied on photographs showing the prosecutrix lying on a hospital bed attended by a nurse, but the nurse’s identity remained unclear. The court further noted that while the FIR was registered on September 18, 2024, the ultrasound machine’s hard disk was seized only on February 24, 2025, and sent to FSL on March 18, 2025, during the pendency of the bail application.
Given the lack of substantial evidence linking the doctor to the alleged abortion, the court ruled in her favor, concluding that there was no justification for curtailing her liberty. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing that, in the event of her arrest, she be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of the same amount.
For Doctor: Advocates Aarushi Singh, Riya Parihar, and Ashutosh Kumar TiwariFor State: Additional Public Prosecutor Priyanka DalalCase Title: X v State (2025:DHC:1966)
Please Login or Register
