DR ANITA RATHAURversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2708 of 2026

Dr Anita Rathaur
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Raghvendra Prakash, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Babloo Pant, G.A., Pavan Kumar, Shiv
                                Bahadur Singh

Court No. - 69
                 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shiv Bahadur
Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri B.P. Maurya,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a
prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.472 of 2023, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 316, 504, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 15(2)
and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, registered at Police Station
Kiratpur, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that
the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due
to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the charge sheet in this case
has already been submitted and the first information report has been
lodged after delay of one year and five months through an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Even the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. has been filed after about seven months of the incident. It is
further submitted that as per allegations in the first information report, the
applicant, who is said to be a doctor has treated the wife of the first
informant for delivery of a child, however, due to her negligence, the
fetus died. It is further submitted that the act of the applicant can, at most,
be construed as 'Medical Negligence' and does not fall within the category
                                                         BAIL No. 2708 of 2026
                               2


of offences punishable under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
It is submitted that the applicant is the owner of the premises in question,
and details regarding the doctor treating the patient have been provided in
the document annexed with the memo of the application. It is further
submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2025,
undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been
pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court,
there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for bail
of the applicant and it has been submitted by him that the applicant has
filed an application before this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS,
challenging the cognizance/summoning order and the charge sheet; this
application has not been dismissed by the Court, and prima facie, the
allegations leveled against the applicant have been found to be correct. It
is further submitted that the first informant had lodged a complaint before
the Chief Medical Officer of Bijnor, asserting that the applicant's conduct
clearly demonstrates that she is not a doctor; consequently, prima facie, a
case is made out against the applicant under Section 316 of the I.P.C. It is
further submitted that the documents of the applicant were found to be
forged one and the hospital of the applicant has been sealed earlier and
therefore, it was reopened. It is further submitted that the applicant has
acted as a qualified doctor to the public and thereby she has induced them
to seek treatment from her thereby committing the offence of forgery.

5. Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail and it has been
submitted by him that the applicant is not a qualified doctor and despite
that she has treated the wife of the first informant for delivery of a child,
however, due to her negligence, the fetus died.

6. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and the first
information report has been lodged after delay of one year and five
months through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Even the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed after about seven
months of the incident. As per allegations in the first information report,
the applicant, who is said to be a doctor has treated the wife of the first
informant for delivery of a child, however, due to her negligence, the
                                                          BAIL No. 2708 of 2026
                                3


fetus died. It is further submitted that the act of the applicant can, at most,
be construed as 'Medical Negligence' and does not fall within the category
of offences punishable under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since
17.11.2025.

7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I
find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is
allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Dr Anita Rathaur involved in the aforesaid case
crime shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned :-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose
                                                                                          BAIL No. 2708 of 2026
                                                                  4


                                    of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed
                                    as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be
                                    absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of
                                    evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.



                                                                                  (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    RKM




Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad