Allahabad High Court
SMT. DR. RAJESH ALIAS VINESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not appropriate and the application was dismissed.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Dr. Rajesh alias Vinesh, who was charged in Crime No. 279 of 2024 under Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023 for allegedly administering treatment that led to a death. The applicant contended she was not a qualified doctor, was an elderly woman, had no criminal antecedents, and that the informant’s statement was unreliable. The State opposed, asserting that she was posing as a doctor, ran an unlicensed clinic that had been sealed, and was not authorized to provide medical care. The Court observed that the applicant was neither a licensed medical practitioner nor a qualified nurse and therefore could not lawfully administer treatment. On this basis, the Court held that granting anticipatory bail was inappropriate and dismissed the application, while indicating that a regular bail application could be considered later on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person who is not a licensed medical practitioner and is accused of administering unlawful medical treatment resulting in death, under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Whether the allegations of false implication and lack of qualification justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 105
- B.N.S.S. — s. 180
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- unlicensed medical practice
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 105 B.N.S. 2023
- medical negligence
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8310 of 2025
Smt. Dr. Rajesh Alias Vinesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Prakash Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar, Prashant Kumar
Dubey, G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant; and
learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears for the opposite party No.2.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 279 of 2024, under Section 105 of the
B.N.S., 2023, Police Station – Titawi, District Muzaffar Nagar, with a
prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of the trial, as
the applicant apprehends her arrest in the aforesaid case.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and seeks anticipatory bail on the
following grounds :-
i. The applicant is not a doctor and she only used to assist in child births.
ii. The applicant is an old aged woman aged about 60 years.
iii. The informant, in his statement, has contended that he did not know
what was written in the report given to the police and he was not the
scribe of the same.
iv. The deceased became ill at her own house when he called the
ambulance.
v. The applicant has also denied having any clinic or hospital.
NABAIL No. 8310 of 2025
2
vi. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
and has stated that the applicant, who is not a licensed medical
practitioner, was posing as a doctor and playing with the lives of the
innocents. The applicant used to run a clinic, which has been sealed on
21.11.2024 i.e. just a day after the applicant is said to have administered
treatment to the deceased.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
7. There appears to be some compromise which has taken place between
the parties. An affidavit of the informant has been filed as Annexure 6 to
this bail application, which is a departure from the version of the first
information report and statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. This Court
presently while adjudicating upon this anticipatory bail application is not
required to comment upon the affidavit so filed, however, from the
material collected during investigation, it appears that the applicant was
running a clinic which was thereafter sealed on 21.11.2024. The applicant
admittedly is not a licensed medical practitioner. She is also not a
qualified nurse. In such circumstance, the applicant was not at all
authorized to administer any treatment.
8. In such circumstances, taking into account the allegations that have
been made against the applicant, the fact that she is not qualified as a
medical professional, I do not deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory
bail to the applicant.
9. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is hereby dismissed.
10. However, in case the applicant appears before the concerned Court
and applies for bail, the same shall be considered independently on its
own merits, without being influenced by the rejection of the present
anticipatory bail application by this Court.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
April 2, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…