BAIL/2708/2026 of DR ANITA RATHAUR Vs STATE OF U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2708 of 2026 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.472 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 316, 504, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 15(2) and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, registered at Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial. 3. It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and the first information report has been lodged after delay of one year and five months through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Even the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed after about seven months of the incident. It is further submitted that as per allegations in the first information report, the applicant, who is said to be a doctor has treated the wife of the first informant for delivery of a child, however, due to her negligence, the fetus died. It is further submitted that the act of the applicant can, at most, be construed as 'Medical Negligence' and does not fall within the category Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghvendra Prakash, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Babloo Pant, G.A., Pavan Kumar, Shiv Bahadur Singh Dr Anita Rathaur .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) of offences punishable under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is submitted that the applicant is the owner of the premises in question, and details regarding the doctor treating the patient have been provided in the document annexed with the memo of the application. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2025, undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and it has been submitted by him that the applicant has filed an application before this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, challenging the cognizance/summoning order and the charge sheet; this application has not been dismissed by the Court, and prima facie, the allegations leveled against the applicant have been found to be correct. It is further submitted that the first informant had lodged a complaint before the Chief Medical Officer of Bijnor, asserting that the applicant's conduct clearly demonstrates that she is not a doctor; consequently, prima facie, a case is made out against the applicant under Section 316 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that the documents of the applicant were found to be forged one and the hospital of the applicant has been sealed earlier and therefore, it was reopened. It is further submitted that the applicant has acted as a qualified doctor to the public and thereby she has induced them to seek treatment from her thereby committing the offence of forgery. 5. Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted by him that the applicant is not a qualified doctor and despite that she has treated the wife of the first informant for delivery of a child, however, due to her negligence, the fetus died. 6. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and the first information report has been lodged after delay of one year and five months through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Even the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed after about seven months of the incident. As per allegations in the first information report, the applicant, who is said to be a doctor has treated the wife of the first informant for delivery of a child, however, due to her negligence, the BAIL No. 2708 of 2026 2 fetus died. It is further submitted that the act of the applicant can, at most, be construed as 'Medical Negligence' and does not fall within the category of offences punishable under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2025. 7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant- Dr Anita Rathaur involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned :- (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose BAIL No. 2708 of 2026 3 of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. May 6, 2026 RKM BAIL No. 2708 of 2026 4 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad