Recently, the Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused of involvement in an illegal medical practice case, observing that the mere issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation does not automatically bar consideration of anticipatory bail, especially in exceptional circumstances.
The case arose from an FIR registered in 2023 at Kiratpur Police Station, Bijnor, under Sections 316, 420, 504, and 120-B of the IPC, along with Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of the Medical Council Act, 1956.
The applicant, a midwife nurse employed at a hospital run by a co-accused, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest. Earlier interim protection had been granted, but a previous anticipatory bail application was rejected. After submission of the charge sheet and issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings, the applicant again approached the High Court, citing changed circumstances.
The Applicant argued that she was merely a nurse working under supervision and had no direct role in the alleged offence. It was contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of over one-and-a-half years and that her name did not figure in earlier complaints filed under Section 156(3) CrPC. She further submitted that non-bailable warrants were issued when she was pregnant and later had just delivered a child, despite repeated applications seeking exemption from personal appearance.
The State and the informant opposed the plea, contending that once non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC had been issued, the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable.
Justice Gautam Chowdhary noted that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail merely because proclamation proceedings have been initiated. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court observed that the nature of allegations, the specific role of the accused, and surrounding circumstances must be examined.
The Court found merit in the Applicant’s explanation that her non-appearance was due to pregnancy and childbirth and held that liberty cannot be curtailed mechanically without considering such factors.
Allowing the application, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial, subject to conditions, including cooperation with the trial, regular appearance before the court, and non-tampering with evidence.
Case Title: Monika vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 Bnss No. - 10241 Of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
Counsel for the Appellant: Sr. Adv. Raghvendra Prakash, Adv. Gaurav Kakkar
Counsel for the State: G.A. Babloo Pant
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
