Umakant Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1077 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1077 Chatt
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Umakant Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                 1




                                                                2026:CGHC:14479
                                                                              NAFR

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                      MCRCA No. 460 of 2026

             Umakant Rathore S/o Harish Rathore, Aged About 35 Years R/o
             Kanhaiband, Police Station Janjgir District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
                                                                         ... Applicant
                                              versus
             State of Chhattisgarh Though Police Station Gidhoari, District Baloda-
             Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
                                                                    ... Non-applicant
             For Applicant                : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate.
             For Non-applicant/State      : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer
                             Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                         Order on Board

            27.03.2026

             1.

This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the

applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime

No. 273/2025 registered at Police Station Gidhoari, District Baloda-

Bazar Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections

105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. As per the prosecution's case, in brief is that on 08.06.2025 at

about 06:00 PM, the deceased, Anju Prajapati, who was pregnant

RAHUL DEWANGAN for the second time, experienced severe labour pain, due to which

Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

her family members took her to the residence of a retired nurse,

Saroj Verma, at Village Amodi, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara

(C.G.). It is alleged that the said nurse examined the deceased and

conducted the delivery at her residence, wherein a child was

delivered in a dead condition. During the course of delivery, the

deceased is stated to have suffered excessive blood loss, and

thereafter she was referred to Sanskar Hospital, Katgi for further

treatment, where she ultimately succumbed during the course of

treatment. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present FIR has

primarily been registered against the doctors and staff of the

concerned hospital who were present on the date of the incident,

and so far as the present applicant is concerned, he is a contractual

doctor at CIMS, Bilaspur and merely a visiting doctor at the said

hospital, having no direct connection with the alleged incident. It is

contended that there is not even a whisper of allegation against the

applicant either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet, and no material

has been brought on record to demonstrate his involvement. It is

further submitted that similarly placed co-accused person, who is

the main accused, namely, Saroj Verma, has already been granted

anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court in MCRCA No.47/2026 vide

order dated 14.01.2026 and other co-accused persons have

already been granted regular bail by this Hon'ble Court. It is also

urged that on the date of the incident, the applicant was not present

at the said hospital and this fact finds support from the statement of

the main accused as well, and the applicant has been regularly

discharging his duties at CIMS, Bilaspur, which is substantiated by

the attendance record and employment documents. It is further

submitted that the applicant has fully cooperated with the

investigation and had appeared before the police authorities when

called, and there has been no attempt on his part to evade the

process of law. It is contended that the allegation regarding his non-

cooperation or disappearance is wholly baseless and concocted, as

the applicant has all along been available at his place of posting. It

is further submitted that the entire case is directed against the main

accused persons who were present at the relevant time, and the

implication of the present applicant is an afterthought, made only

with an intention to harass and tarnish his reputation. Hence, it is

prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non -

applicant/State, opposes the submission made by the learned

counsel for the applicant and submits that the allegations are

serious in nature and relate to gross negligence in conducting the

delivery, which resulted in the death of the deceased. It is

contended that the matter is still under investigation and the role of

the present applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage, as he is

connected with the concerned hospital. It is further submitted that

grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the

investigation. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of

allegations and the material available on record, it appears that

there is no specific allegation against the present applicant either in

the FIR or in the charge-sheet, and his presence at the place of

occurrence is also not established. It is further reflected that the

main accused, namely, Saroj Verma, has already been granted

anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.47/2026 vide order

dated 14.01.2026 and other co-accused persons have already been

granted regular bail by this Court and the applicant is stated to have

cooperated with the investigation. Therefore, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on

anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in

the event of arrest of the applicant - Umakant Rathore on

executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the

satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on

the following conditions:-

(a) 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 fact to the Court.

(b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be

prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

(c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on

each and every date given to him by the said Court till

disposal of the trial.

(d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her

adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo

having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be

verified by the trial Court.