SC grants anticipatory bail to doctor accused of involvement in Lucknow fraud case
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: Granting relief to a senior doctor, who is facing criminal proceedings in an alleged fraud case linked to a medical trust and pharma company, the Supreme Court has granted him anticipatory bail.
However, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and Shree Chandrashekhar expressed concern over the doctor's failure to disclose his criminal antecedents prominently in the petition.
Issuing notice on the doctor's plea seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Hazratganj Police Station in Lucknow, the top court bench ordered the release of the doctor in the event of an arrest and also ordered the petitioner-doctor to cooperate with the investigation.
"Till the next date of hearing, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer in connection with FIR No.62/2026 registered with P.S. Hazratganj, DistrictLucknow Central (Lucknow Commissionerate) for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023," ordered the bench, further noting, "The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigation."
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 24 August, 2026.
As per the latest media report by Lawbeat, the counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi, explained that the dispute arose from a pharmaceutical company, Dawa Khana, in which the petitioner's son and the complainant each had 40% shares. He submitted that the company had been acquired to supply medicines to hospitals run by a charitable trust.
He also submitted that the petitioner-doctor was never a director of the company and had no role in its management. According to the petitioner's counsel, the complainant allegedly failed to clear payments owed to medicine suppliers. Due to this, the vendors approached the petitioner because of his standing in the medical fraternity.
After examining the company's affairs, the petitioner allegedly discovered financial irregularities and thereafter lodged a criminal complaint against the complainant.
It was further submitted that the complainant had later resigned as a director, fresh directors were inducted and the necessary changes were duly filed with the Registrar of Companies. Further, the counsel pointed out that other directors had already secured interim protection from the Allahabad High Court.
Highlighting that the petitioner-doctor was a senior citizen and a doctor who had been associated with several medical colleges and hospitals in Uttar Pradesh since 1985, the counsel argued that the Investigating Officer's reference to the petitioner's termination from government service in the Animal Husbandry Department a day before retirement was not at all relevant to the question of interim protection.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court without making a full disclosure of his criminal antecedents. It was submitted that the matter was raised before the Allahabad High Court as well and the respondent had specifically objected to the petitioner's reliance on interim orders obtained by other directors without disclosing his own criminal history.
The respondent counsel referred to the High Court proceedings and argued that the petitioner had been accused in an earlier FIR of forging documents, opening unauthorised bank accounts and diverting trust funds.
He also submitted that despite the observations by the High Court, the petitioner merely mentioned in his pleadings before the Supreme Court that he had "no active criminal trials and no serious criminal history", instead of fully disclosing all pending criminal proceedings.
Taking note of the submissions, the Supreme Court, during the hearing, questioned why the petitioner had not disclosed in the petition the criminal cases in a clear chart.
Even though the counsel submitted that the matter was a quashing petition and therefore there was nothing further to disclose, the bench disagreed and observed, "You cannot tuck it away somewhere else. If you are relying upon it, the disclosure should be upfront in the synopsis. We have seen the disclosure."
At the outset, the petitioner's counsel tried to highlight the antecedents of the respondent. However, the bench remarked that those issues were not relevant to the limited question before it.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/03/supreme-court-anticipatory-bail-357545.pdf
