Holding

The Court dismissed the regular bail application, finding that the applicant’s alleged participation and abetment of the illegal abortion, coupled with evidence tampering and prior antecedents, preclude the grant of bail.

Summary

The applicant, a practising doctor, was charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act for allegedly performing an illegal abortion on a minor victim and destroying related evidence. The victim, a girl aged between 16 and 18, had been sexually exploited by her landlord, became pregnant, and was taken to the applicant's hospital where a termination beyond the 20‑week limit was allegedly carried out without consent or mandatory reporting. The State opposed the regular bail application, contending that the doctor actively abetted the offence, tampered with evidence, and has prior similar antecedents. The Court examined the medical records, the gestational age, and the applicant's failure to preserve medico‑legal documents, concluding that the prima facie case of abetment and evidence tampering was established. Relying on precedents concerning bail in heinous crimes, the Court held that liberty is not absolute and that granting bail would risk further tampering. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

The applicant is entitled to regular bail after the filing of a charge‑sheet for offences under the BNS and POCSO Act.
Whether the applicant actively participated in and abetted the illegal abortion and tampered with evidence.
Whether the applicant’s prior antecedents and the seriousness of the offence preclude the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitas. 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 28, s. 90
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Acts. 4, s. 6

Subjects

regular bailafter chargesheetPOCSO Actillegal abortionevidence tamperingabetmentminor victimmedical negligenceBharatiya Nyaya SanhitaBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitacriminal procedure

Judgment

R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 13215 of 2026

============================================
JITENDRASINH LALITSINH RANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
============================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN BHARDA with MR DIPESH D SONI(9996) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 04/08/2026

ORDER

1) By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the

applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR being CR

No.11214021260185 of 2026 registered with Kosamba

Police Station, Surat Rural for the offence punishable under

Sections 64(2)(f)(i)(m), 75(2), 88, 89, 94, 54, 115(2) and

238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”)

and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, (for short “POCSO Act”).

2) At the outset, it is pertinent to note that in the case on hand

judicial wisdom prevailed over the money and muscle power,

pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2026, passed by the Hon’ble

Page 1 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

Division Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application

(Habeas Corpus) No.267 of 2026, impugned offence has been

registered, wherein, it has been observed as under:

“1. On 7th of January, 2026, we had issued notice
returnable on 13th of January, 2026.

2. On 13th of January, 2026, the Police secured the
presence of the Corpus and presented her before us. We
interacted with her and we were of the view that she
should be kept in the Children Home for Girls, Surat for
the present and accordingly she was kept in the Children
Home for Girls, Surat.

3. In the writ petition, the father of the corpus has alleged
that his daughter who is allegedly 15 years and 8 months
old, went missing since 5th of July, 2025 and it is further
alleged that she had been illegally confined by the
respondent No.3 Gopal. However, the corpus narrates a
story, which if true, is shocking.
4. The corpus states that she was being abused by her
parents when she was living with them in a rented
premises. She also goes on to state that the owner of the
rented premises Amjad Sheikh sexually exploited her as a
result of which, she conceived. She also states that as a
result of the conception, she was about 5 to 6 months
pregnant when her parents in collusion with Amjad Sheikh
took her to Ashirvad Hospital and made her undergo an
abortion. She also states that the said Amjad Sheikh had
paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to her parents to keep silent
over this issue.

5. The corpus also states that ever since, she is being
subjected to repeated abuse by her parents and as a
result she was disillusioned with them. She states that she
was working in a company along with the respondent No.3
and she confided her difficulties to the respondent No.3
and requested him to stand by her. She submits that the
respondent No.3 agreed to stay with her and the corpus
decided to flee from the place and requested respondent

Page 2 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

No.3 Gopal to accompany her. She also states that Gopal
acceded to this request and went along with her and she
was not under the illegal confinement of Gopal at any
point of time. She submits that Gopal had not abducted
her and on the other hand, she had basically forced Gopal
to come along with her to enable her to escape from her
parents.

6. If these facts indeed true, this would reveal that the
petitioner who is the father of the corpus is to blame for
the operation caused to the corpus.

7. The father of the corpus has not stated anything in the
writ petition about the corpus’s allegation that she had
been sexually exploited by their landlord Amjad Sheikh
and she had to undergo an abortion. The medical
examination of the corpus, as of now, reveals that she is
more then 16 years old and less than 18 years as of now.
The corpus states that she does not have any
documentary evidence to indicate as to what is her actual
date of birth.

8. In the light of the above facts, in our view, it would be
appropriate to direct the concerned Police to undertake a
comprehensive investigation regarding allegations made
by the corpus about being sexually exploited by Amjad
Sheikh and about her abortion and also the receipt of Rs.
5,00,000/- by her parents from Amjad Sheikh.

9. It is needless to state that if these allegations are found
to be true, necessary proceedings will have to be initiated
against all concerned.

10. The corpus states before us that she has no inclination
whatsoever to stay with her parents and that she would
wish to remain in the Children Home for Girls, Surat.

11. The corpus, as per desire, shall remain in the Children
Home for Girls, Surat until further orders. The concerned
Superintendent of Police shall personally supervise the
investigation to be conducted by the Police and the report

Page 3 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

should be submitted before this Court within a period of
four weeks.”

3) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the offense was registered

on 12.02.2026, with Kosamba Police Station, Surat Rural. It is

an undisputed and admitted fact that the victim was noticed by

the learned Division Bench and as per the statement made by

the father on oath, the victim was minor at the relevant point of

time. Subsequently, a report was filed stating that she was

major at the relevant point of time. Whatever the case may be,

it is an undisputed fact that she was of tender age at the time

when the offence was committed, as it is alleged that the

offense was committed prior to one year and the landlord

exploited her.

4) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda with Mr. Dipesh Soni,

for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Himanshu K Patel, for

respondent – State of Gujarat.

5) Learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda with Mr. Dipesh Soni, for the

applicant has submitted that the applicant is a practicing Doctor

who has been arraigned as an accused no.7, who has been

falsely enroped in the present offence. The charge sheet has

been filed, and now nothing is required to be recovered or

discovered from the applicant. He has further submitted that

there is no allegation of sexual exploitation of the victim against

Page 4 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

the applicant and the victim was exploited by the landlord which

resulted into pregnancy of 5 to 6 months. He has further

submitted that the parents of the victim colluded with Amjad

Sheikh, took her to Ashirvad / Aram Hospital and forced her to

undergo an abortion where the applicant has performed the

abortion of the victim. Except this no role is attributed to the

applicant. Initially, provisions of POCSO Act was invoked but

during the course of investigation the victim was found to be 18

years old, she was sheltered safely at Children Home for Girls,

Surat. The applicant is having Aaram Hospital and allegedly he

had administered drugs to cause miscarriage without the

consent of the victim and handed over stillborn fetus to be

secretly dispose of in river but the said allegations are far away

from truth. Whatever involvement is on the part of her parents

and co-accused and the applicant has only rendered professional

service. Therefore, he has requested to allow the present

application.

6) Learned APP for the respondent - State has vehemently opposed

the present application on the ground that the applicant has

actively participated and abetted the offence. The applicant

being a Doctor indulged in such illegal activity and two past

antecedents are registered against the applicant qua medical

negligence. The applicant has helped the co-accused and failed

Page 5 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

to report the incident to police about commitment of the offence.

Though the victim was aged between 16 to 18 years she was

repeatedly exploited by the landlord which resulted into

pregnancy and matter was settled by her parents by taking Rs.5

lakhs to cover up the crime. The applicant has played active role

in her abortion and biological brother is also involved. The

involvement of the landlord and settlement by her parents

clearly shows involvement and how they covered up the issue.

The applicant has also performed miscarriage without the

consent of the victim and secretly destroyed the medical record

and fetus of stillborn child due to which the Investigating Officer

could not collected the DNA samples which obviously helped to

the accused. There is every possibility that, if the applicant is

released on bail, he will indulge in similar offences and try to

tamper with the evidence. Therefore, present application does

not deserve consideration.

7) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

and going through the investigating papers, it appears that

initially the accused No.3 had filed a missing person report about

her daughter i.e. the victim alleging that the victim was a minor.

But as the police failed to trace out the girl, the accused no.3 –

father of the victim had filed Special Criminal Application

(Habeas Corpus) No.267 of 2026 before the Hon’ble Division

Page 6 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

Bench of this Court. Pursuant to the directions issued by the

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the victim was traced out

along with the accused. Subsequently, sections pertaining to the

commission of offense under the POCSO Act were added and

charge-sheet came to be filed which culminated into POCSO

Case No.39 of 2026.

8) As per the case of the prosecution, the accused no.3 has twin

daughters, including the present victim. The date of birth of

victim is recorded as 06.08.2004, and the alleged offense is

stated to have been committed during the period from

02.12.2024 to 11.05.2025. As the victim was unwilling to stay

with her parents and wished to remain in the Children Home for

Girls, she was sent to the Children Home for Girls, Surat,

pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application

(Habeas Corpus) No.267 of 2026.

9) When the victim was traced out by the police pursuant to the

order passed in Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus)

No.267 of 2026, she was carrying a pregnancy of 5 to 6 months.

Further perusing the record, it appears that the parents of the

victim settled the dispute by receiving 5 Lakhs towards a

settlement from the accused, Amjad Sheikh who is 52 years old.

Thereafter, an abortion was performed by the present applicant

Page 7 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

who is arraigned as accused No.7. After investigation, the

allegations against the applicant are that, the victim visited on

09.05.2025 and was admitted as a patient. Allegedly primary

treatment was given to control the discharge of bleeding caused

by excessive menstruation and the Doctor denied any abortion

or further treatment. However, during further investigation,

based on the prescription and the opinion of a Gynecologist from

Civil Hospital Surat, it was found that the treatment given was

specifically for abortion. The specific injections and treatments

are as follows:

i) Inj-Hytoes (Ceftazidim); ii) Inj-Dynapar; iii) Inj-
Amikacin; iv) Inj-Pitocine; v) Inj-Methargin and vi) Inj-
Metrogyl.

10) Based on this evidence, it was found that the applicant was

aware about the pregnancy of the victim. The victim was

carrying a 21 weeks and 5 days pregnancy, which is beyond the

permissible limit of 20 weeks under the Medical Termination

Pregnancy Act and Rules also. The abortion was performed by

the applicant secretly without reporting the offense.

Furthermore, the victim was a minor and unmarried at the

relevant point of time. Without the consent of the victim and

without informing the police about a medico-legal case, the

applicant administered medicines and performed the procedure.

A stillborn child was delivered and the applicant played an active

Page 8 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

role along with co-accused in destroying the evidence. The fetus

was disposed of in the Kim River and all treatment papers were

disposed of from the hospital to prevent the investigating agency

from collecting a DNA sample of the stillborn child. As envisaged

under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, it was the duty of the doctor

to report the offense. However, instead of informing the police

about the medico-legal case, the applicant abetted the offense

to hush up the entire issue.

11) One important aspect is that the co-accused, Amjad Sheikh,

against whom allegations of rape have been leveled, is aged 52

years, who is the landlord in a position of trust and authority

towards the victim committed rape repeatedly that too when the

victim was incapable of giving free consent and she was

otherwise reluctant. Despite repeated instances of rape, the

parents acting as guardians failed to protect or rescue the

victim. Instead, they entered into a settlement and received 5

Lakhs from the accused and a receipt for this transaction was

recovered during the investigation. The statement of the victim

was recorded under section 183 BNSS wherein, the victim has

substantiated the allegations. Though herein the documents

collected qua the age of the victim is illegible and though the

report was filed to delete Section 64(2)(i) of BNS, as to whether

the said consent was free consent as defined under Section 28 of

Page 9 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

the BNS / Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, itself is the

matter of question of evidence. Hence, argument canvassed by

the learned Advocate for the applicant qua consent will not avail

any assistance.

12) Considering the seriousness of the offense, the tampering with

the evidence including destroying the fetus coupled with past

antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of further tampering

with evidence cannot be ruled out if the applicant is released on

bail. During the hearing, when a query was raised to the learned

Advocate for the applicant regarding the gestational period of

the victim, the reply given was "1 to 1.5 months gestation

period," which was not only false but misleading statement, as

the victim was carrying a pregnancy of 21 weeks and 5 days.

When second query was raised about the destruction of records,

the learned Advocate relied on a register maintained under the

PNDT Act indicating a Sonography at Gurudev Ultrasonography

and X-ray Clinic at Kosamba. However, this is not pertaining to

the applicant's hospital and no other material of treatment was

produced that might help the investigation. Further, the learned

Advocate for the applicant has done one more vain attempt to

show that the patient register is recovered from the Hospital but

it is needless to say that under Clinical Establishment Act and

even otherwise as per Medical Council Rules, the applicant being

Page 10 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

the registered Medical Practitioner, it was the duty of the

applicant to preserve and maintain the record of the indoor and

outdoor patient. In case of indoor patient, details of admission,

anesthesia, treatment and other record ought to have been

preserved by the Medical Practitioner. In case of Medico Legal

Case the Doctor has to preserve respective record for 5 to 10

years or subject to pendency of litigation.

13) In the present case the applicant not only failed to maintain and

provide the record to police authority but did not inform the

authority though he was fully aware of the fact that the victim is

unmarried and gestational period was beyond 20 weeks. If we

accept the case that the victim was major even though papers

qua consent is also not maintained or produced on record. The

applicant actively participated in destroying and cleaning the

evidence and the documents pointed out by the learned

Advocate for the applicant were irrelevant and not helpful to the

applicant. The applicant has committed offence under Sections

88, 89 and 94 of the BNS and the applicant has actively

participated and abetted the offence. So far abetment is

concerned, the BNS covers many crimes done by one or more

persons, where some may be the perpetrators while some may

just be aiding the crime. Provoking, encouraging, or aiding

someone to covering up offence is a criminal act punishable

Page 11 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

under the BNS /Indian Penal Code (IPC) as abetment. Anyone

who aids or leads the crime cannot use the defence of non-

presence of actus reus to get away from the punishment

associated with it. Delving into the realm of abetment, it

becomes essential to comprehend the profound implications and

legal ramifications associated with the offence. The person

abetting must have complete knowledge of the crime he or she

will commit as a result of the said abetment. In general

parlance, abetment by aiding as a crime committed by an

abettor when he/she intentionally aids in the facilitation of the

conduct of the crime done by the perpetrators as Legal

consequences vary depending on act and participation and the

severity of the abetted crime. Some times if the offence is

committed in consequences of abetment then the longest term

of punishment provided for the offence / fine / both qua abetted

offence is to be sentenced. Herein the punishment is rigorous

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years,

but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean

imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and

shall also be liable to fine. This Court has considered quantum of

punishment of alleged offence also and propensity of tempering

witness along with past antecedents.

14) Before parting, it would apposite to say that it's pious duty and

Page 12 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

obligation of Bar and Bench to uphold dignity of Courts and

Majesty of Law. Here in, the learned Advocates for the applicant

have twice made vain attempts to mislead this court and that

too though attention of learned Advocate was drawn at the first

instance though second time, same was repeated without any

apology or remorse. Due to this reason with all due respect and

honour to the Bar it would be apt to quote and rely on the

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P.Chadha

vs Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors. reported in 2001 (2) SCC

221. As a responsible officer of the Court the counsel have an

overall obligation of assisting the Courts in a just and proper

manner for the just and proper administration of justice. Zeal

and enthusiasm are the traits of success in profession but over-

zealousness and misguided enthusiasm have no place in the

personality of a professional. An advocate while discharging duty

to his client, has a right to do everything fearlessly and boldly

that would advance the cause of his client. After all he has been

engaged by his client to secure justice for him. A counsel need

not make a concession merely because it would please the

Judge. Yet a counsel, in his zeal to earn success for a client,

need not step over the well defined limits or propriety, repute

and justness. Independence and fearlessness are not licences of

liberty to do anything in the Court and to earn success to a client

whatever be the cost and whatever be the sacrifice of

Page 13 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

professional norms. A lawyer must not hesitate in telling the

Court the correct position of law when it is undisputed and

admits of no exception. A view of the law settled by the ruling of

a superior Court or a binding precedent even if it does not serve

the cause of his client, must be brought to the notice of Court

unhesitatingly. This obligation of a counsel flows from the

confidence reposed by the Court in the counsel appearing for

any of the two sides. A counsel, being an officer of Court shall

apprise the Judge with the correct position of law whether for or

against either party.

15) Further, in the case of Vijay Syal & Anr v. State of Punjab

reported in (2003) 9 SCC 401, the Hon’ble supreme Court has

stated in order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of

the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should

not make false or knowingly inaccurate statements or

misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with

a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the

Court, when a Court is considered as a place where truth and

justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute

such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation

and is concealing material facts, it does so at its risk and cost.

16) Regarding the dispute over the applicability of the POCSO Act

based on an illegible document collected from the Composite

Page 14 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

School, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, i.e. register entry and

certificate issued by it stating date of birth of victim as

06.08.2004 is a question of trial. However, the fact remains that

a serious offense was committed within the four walls of a house

against a woman and the police and parents initially attempted

to hush up the issue. Considering the quantum of punishment,

the manner in which the accused took advantage of their

positions, tampering with evidence and abetment of offence by

the applicant, this Court is of the view that the liberty is not

absolute at the cost of societal interest.

17) The liberty of a person should not be dealt with lightly as the

liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one

and cry of the collective for justice. In an orderly society an

individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law

and also giving due respect to rights of others. In the present

case, the applicant has abetted the offence which is going to

accentuate to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal

which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society including

interference with the administration of justice, as the accused is

having money and muscle power he can do whatever he wants.

Therefore, considering past antecedents of the applicant, who is

a headstrong person, who has already destroyed and tampered

with evidence, the further possibility of tampering with evidence

Page 15 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

cannot be ruled out if the applicant is released on bail. In view of

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

U.P. Through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi reported in

(2005)8 SCC 21, and considering the gravity and seriousness

of the offence, as well as the fact that the victim is yet to be

examined, it is not expedient to enlarge the applicant on bail

since rape is an extremely reprehensible and heinous crime

against society. It defiles and degrades the victim physically and

mentally, and it shakes the very core of their life.

18) At this stage, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and

Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, is also required to be

referred to wherein it has been held that the concept of liberty is

not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and no

element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of

which the life or liberty of others is jeopardized.

19) In the present case, the applicant is having two past antecedents

that too similar type of cases related to medical negligence and

out of the said two cases, applicant is acquitted in one case and

one case is pending. This shows that the applicant is habitual in

committing such offences again and again though liberty granted

by concerned Courts in earlier offences and if the applicant is

released on bail in connection with the present offence, then it

Page 16 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

would send wrong signal and message to the society and

undermines public confidence in judicial system.

20) This Court is conscious about the right to liberty of accused

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but herein

the applicant is having similar nature of two past antecedents.

The Court is duty bound to see that although the personal liberty

is a fundamental right but is not an absolute right. Liberty must

not be given when it threatens the collective interest of the

society and no one has the right to put on peril the liberty of

others. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2014)16 SCC

508 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that exercise

of grant of bail though discretionary in nature cannot be

arbitrary, capricious and injudicious and in heinous nature of

crime warrants more caution. Even, as per the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar

Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496,

the Court has to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction very

cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles.

Herein, this Court is of considered view that prima facie

involvement and accusation of the applicant is established.

Page 17 of 18
R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026

21) So far as submission on behalf of the applicant that charge-sheet

is filed and nothing is required to be recovered or discovered and

no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the

bars is concerned, another important aspect that needs to be

considered is that mere filing of a charge sheet is not a sufficient

ground to enlarge the accused on bail, as held by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda and Another

vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406.

If the applicant is released, the possibility of tampering with

evidence cannot be ruled out.

22) Considering seriousness of offence and involvement of accused,

present application being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial

since the applicant is an under-trial prisoner.

23) It is made clear that the observations made in the present order

are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide

the case of the applicant on its own merits without being

influenced by the observations made in the present order. Rule

is hereby discharged.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE ONE, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/08/2026 18:15:55

Page 18 of 18