The Delhi High Court has 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 revolved around allegations related to the medical termination of a pregnancy following an alleged rape.

Additional Public Prosecutor Priyanka Dalal did not contend that the doctor acted in furtherance of a common intention with the accused rapists.

The allegations against her stemmed from the prosecutrix's statement that, upon discovering her pregnancy, she was taken to the doctor's hospital by the sister of one of the accused.

It was alleged that the doctor performed an ultrasound to confirm the pregnancy and subsequently administered pills that led to an abortion.

During the investigation, the doctor denied any involvement, stating that the prosecutrix never visited her hospital. Searches conducted at the hospital did not yield any records indicating that the prosecutrix underwent an ultrasound or received treatment there.

The hospital’s ultrasound machine hard disk was seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), with its 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, a bailable offense. She further highlighted the absence of direct evidence linking the doctor to the alleged crime.

APP Dalal, however, pointed to photographs retrieved from a mobile phone belonging to one of the accused, which allegedly showed the prosecutrix at the hospital. Additionally, call detail records (CDRs) indicated communication between the doctor and the accused’s sister.

Dalal also informed the court 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, asserting that the doctor had administered abortion pills and conducted the procedure. However, the court identified inconsistencies in the statements, particularly noting that the prosecutrix initially alleged in the FIR that the accused administered the abortion pills. This aspect was altered in a later statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The court further considered the significant delay in filing the complaint, which was lodged nearly one and a half years after the alleged incident. Despite thorough searches, no documentary evidence was found confirming that the prosecutrix had received treatment at the doctor's hospital.

The court also addressed the prosecution's reliance on CDRs to establish the prosecutrix’s presence at the hospital. It was noted that the prosecutrix resided in the hospital’s neighborhood, and the communication records reflected only three phone calls between the doctor and the accused’s sister, without any substantial evidence indicating the doctor’s complicity in the alleged offense.

Additionally, the prosecution submitted photographs showing the prosecutrix on a hospital bed attended by a nurse, but the nurse’s identity remained unclear. The court observed 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 bail application proceedings.

Given the absence of conclusive evidence linking the doctor to the alleged abortion, the court ruled in her favor, determining that there was no justification for restricting her liberty. Consequently, anticipatory bail was granted, with the court 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 the Doctor: Advocates Aarushi Singh, Riya Parihar, and Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari
For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor Priyanka Dalal
Case Title: X v State (2025:DHC:1966)