Allahabad HC rejects bail plea of doctor accused of sexually assaulting On-duty nurse
Allahabad High Court
Prayagraj: Citing insufficient evidence and lack of valid grounds for bail, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to a doctor accused of sexually assaulting a Dalit nurse at a private hospital during her night duty. However, the court granted bail to two co-accused—a nurse and a ward boy—who were allegedly involved in aiding and abetting the crime.
While the court observed that there was insufficient evidence to grant bail to the doctor, it determined that the co-accused had sufficient grounds for bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Passing the judgment, Single Bench Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava noted, "Insofar as accused appellants- Smt Mehnaz and Faizan are concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed."
Also read- Court denies anticipatory bail to Paediatric Surgeon Accused of Negligence in 5-Year-Old's Death
The case revolves around an incident on August 17, 2024, in which the victim, a nurse at AVM Hospital, alleged that the doctor sexually assaulted her with the assistance of two others and subjected her to caste-based abuse. She also claimed that she was detained at the hospital overnight.
According to the complainant, the doctor, prime accused in the case, called her into his cabin around midnight, and when she refused to go there, she was forcibly escorted by two co-accused, a nurse and a ward boy. After she was forced inside the cabin, co-accused allegedly locked the door from outside, and the doctor allegedly raped the victim. Her mobile phone was also reportedly snatched away to ensure that she couldn't call anyone for help.
After the case was brought to the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad, the judge rejected the bail application of the three accused. Following this, the accused filed separate criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, before the HC challenging the rejection of their bail applications by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad.
During the hearing, the council appearing for the bail applicants argued that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He also highlighted that essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act were missing in this case. They argued that the CDR report and CCTV footage which the I.O. has collected also do not corroborate the prosecution version in material terms. Moreover, the pathology and lab reports also do not support the prosecution case, argued the counsel.
"It is also submitted that the appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime and no other previous incident has been stated by the victim in her statement under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. Appellants are in jail since 19.8.2024 having no criminal history to their credit," the counsel added.
Opposing the arguments and the bail plea, the counsel for the state argued that the appellants had committed the offence knowing that the victim belonged to a scheduled caste community. Furthermore, it was submitted that the CCTV footage contained several incriminating views and the delay in lodging the FIR was justified as it was quite natural and probable for the victim to hesitate in this case to come forward to disclose the shameful incident, which might cause a dent in her image.
After reviewing the case, Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava upheld the rejection of bail for Dr ***, stating that no valid grounds were found to release him at this stage. Therefore, it dismissed the petitioner's bail application.
"Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, insofar as the appellant Dr ** is concerned, he is the principal offender, though he is in jail since 19.8.224 but no good ground is made out to enlarge him on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant Dr Shahnawaj is affirmed and the Criminal Appeal No. 11765 of 2024 filed by him is dismissed," stated the bench.
However, the court ruled in favour of the two co-accused, granting them bail on the condition that they do not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or commit a similar offense. The trial court’s decision to reject their bail was set aside, and they were ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.
Further, the court concluded with a warning that, "In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court."
To view the official court order, click on the link below:
