In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a radiologist from Bhilai in a case alleging molestation, with the Chief Justice making strong observations about the potential misuse of criminal law.
Court Questions Motive Behind Complaint
The bench, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, granted the relief on November 27. The court noted that the complaint seemed to be an "afterthought" and prima facie appeared "false and motivated." The Chief Justice emphasized the judiciary's role in preventing the misuse of criminal proceedings when allegations seem driven by ulterior motives.
The Trigger: Refusal to Conduct Illegal Test
The heart of the matter, according to the court's observations, was the doctor's adherence to the law. The court found that the complainant, a nine-month pregnant woman, had asked the 50-year-old doctor to conduct a fetal or embryo examination. This act is expressly prohibited under Indian law.
The doctor refused to perform this unlawful test, upholding his professional ethics. The High Court concluded that this refusal likely triggered the subsequent criminal complaint against him.
Sequence of Events and Police Case
The case was registered at Supela police station under Sections 74, 75(1)(ii), and 79 of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complaint alleged indecent behaviour during an ultrasound conducted on October 16 at a diagnostic centre in Bhilai.
While the prosecution argued that the doctor made objectionable physical contact behind a curtain, the High Court scrutinized the case diary. The material on record indicated a different sequence of events, contradicting the prosecution's version.
Clean Record and Preliminary Findings
The court considered several factors in favour of the doctor:
- The complainant had visited the diagnostic centre throughout her pregnancy without raising any prior grievance.
- The doctor possessed a clean professional record with no criminal history.
- Documents proving his valid medical registration and the diagnostic centre's license were presented to the court.
While stressing that its findings were preliminary and limited to the bail stage, the High Court stated the circumstances strongly justified protecting the applicant from arrest. The court held that the complaint seemed lodged "solely with the intent to harass and malign the applicant."
This ruling highlights the judiciary's cautious approach in balancing the need to protect individuals from genuine crimes while safeguarding citizens from potentially vexatious litigation.
