'MD Degree No Clean Chit': Delhi HC Rejects Bail of Doctor Accused of ISIS Links

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court bench recently denied granting bail to a ophthalmologist, who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for allegedly being associated with the terrorist group ISIS.

Even though the counsel for the doctor repeatedly urged the Court to consider the bail plea, considering that he is a qualified ophthalmologist from MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore, the HC bench observed that the accused could not be given a clean chit just because he had an MD degree, 

"...he has done all his studies. He is an MD from MS Ramaiah Medical College, but this does not give him a clean chit," observed the HC bench comprising Justice Subramonium and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.

Also Read: Maharashtra: Doctor detained for funding IS suspects

As per the latest media report by Lawbeat, the bail plea was filed by one Dr Abdul Rehman alias Dr. Brave. He submitted before the Court that he was arrested due to a telephonic conversation regarding his intent to provide medical assistance to refugees. However, the NIA had claimed that videos related to ISIS, Osama Bin Laden, and other materials that contained pro-hate content were recovered from his mobile phone.

It was submitted that during the search and seizure at the accused doctor's residence, a laser guide along with other unexplained materials, were found. In fact, the court had also raised suspicion regarding this.

During the hearing of the bail plea, the counsel for the doctor, Advocate Pankaj, argued that the presence of an oscilloscope in the accused's residence was consistent with his medical profession. She also contended that the NIA's remand application included exhibits suggesting that certain common materials found at the accused doctor's residence could allegedly be used to construct a model rocket launcher.

The counsel also dismissed the claim as speculative and argued that such materials could also be found in the homes of individuals engaged in other professions, such as bakers or lawyers.

Even though the Court acknowledged that the accused had been incarcerated for four years and eight months, and accepted the fact that he was a young medical professional, the bench noted that other arguments presented by the defense were not acceptable to the Bench.

Advocate Pankaj also addressed claims regarding the accused's past travel to Syria in the year 2013 and denied that he had suffered a bullet injury there, as was alleged by the NIA. She also stated that he had visited the country only once, and that too with a humanitarian organization, 'Doctors Without Borders'. Advocate Pankaj also submitted that the witness who made the statements against her client was not even being prosecuted in the case.

Relying on the Supreme Court case order in the case of Vernon v State of Maharashtra, the counsel for the accused doctor argued that the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, were not made out. She asserted that the acts referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (c) of Section 15(1) could not be attributed to the accused. She also submitted that the framing of these charges were challenged in connected appeals before the High Court.

Responding to the Court's inquiry regarding the presence of a laser guide, Advocate Pankaj reiterated that what was found during search was not a laser guide but an oscilloscope, which was neither examined nor mentioned in the remand application.

At this outset, the Court noted a three-month delay between the seizure of exhibits and their production and acknowledged the potential for tampering during that period. However, the bench observed it as the maximum extent to which the defense's case could be stretched.

Meanwhile, the doctor's counsel asserted that the accused's failure to plead guilty stemmed from his commitment to serve the underprivileged as a doctor and not due to any culpability. However, the Court observed that while the accused held a medical degree, it could not be used as a ground to exonerate the doctor.

Therefore, the Court denied the bail plea. However, it granted liberty to the accused doctor either to withdraw the current appeal and file an appropriate forum or let the Court reserve an order in this appeal.

However, Advocate Pankaj, the accused doctor's counsel, suggested examination of the main witness of the DRDO and then continuing with the case proceedings. Therefore, the court listed the matter for further hearing on September 25, 2025.

Also Read: Union Health Minister Nadda Reviews Health Infrastructure amid border tensions