CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----34815 34815 34815 34815 109 109 109 109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Shaheen Banu State of Haryana Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) petitioner, in case bearing commission of offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(c) Cosmetics Act, Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2018 and Sections 125 and 318(4) of the Faridabad. 2. namely, Dr. Richa Batra, Senior Medical Officer, about 11:45 a.m., a team comprising Officer), and Sh. Sandeep Gehlan premises of M/s Shaheen Clinic, situated at C 34815 34815 34815 34815----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----34815 34815 34815 34815----2026 2026 2026 2026 Shaheen Banu versus Haryana Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: July 20 July 20 July 20 July 20, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July July July July 21 21 21 21, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Arpan Narula, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the in case bearing FIR No.146 dated 04.06.2026, regis commission of offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(c) Cosmetics Act, Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2018 and Sections 125 and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station SGM Nagar, District The gravamen of the FIR in question is that Dr. Richa Batra, Senior Medical Officer, about 11:45 a.m., a team comprising of the complainant, Dr. Gaurav (Medical Officer), and Sh. Sandeep Gehlan (Drug Control Officer premises of M/s Shaheen Clinic, situated at C-1535, Jannar Manzil, 33 Feet Road, 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the 146 dated 04.06.2026, registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2018 and BNS, 2023, at Police Station SGM Nagar, District The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, Dr. Richa Batra, Senior Medical Officer, alleged that on 04.06.2026 at the complainant, Dr. Gaurav (Medical Drug Control Officer), Faridabad, visited the 1535, Jannar Manzil, 33 Feet Road, 1111 ....Petitioner ....Respondent filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the tered for of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2018 and BNS, 2023, at Police Station SGM Nagar, District the complainant, that on 04.06.2026 at the complainant, Dr. Gaurav (Medical , Faridabad, visited the 1535, Jannar Manzil, 33 Feet Road, MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----34815 34815 34815 34815----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 SGM Nagar, in connection with an inquiry into a complaint regarding the unauthorized practice of medicine without possessing the qualifications prescribed under the provisions of the National Medical Commission Act. During the inspection, the petitioner was found maintaining the clinic and practicing medicine. She was also found in possession of various drugs, medical instruments, and equipment commonly used in medical treatment and the delivery of pregnant women. Upon being asked, the petitioner failed to produce any degree, diploma, registration certificate, or any other document evidencing her eligibility or authorization to practice medicine. It is alleged that, despite lacking the requisite qualifications, she was impersonating a doctor, providing medical treatment, prescribing and dispensing medicines, and charging patients for such services, thereby endangering the lives and safety of the general public. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR, being mother-in-law of Jeba Khan, as the FIR in question is the result of longstanding matrimonial disputes and multiple litigations between Jeba Khan and the petitioner’s son and family. Learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution has falsely projected the petitioner as a practicing doctor without possession of the requisite qualifications and registrations, whereas, the petitioner is merely the owner of the building in question where the clinic is situated and the petitioner had never represented herself as a medical practitioner. It has been stated that the clinic was, in fact, being attended and operated by Dr. Zainul Aabedeen, a duly qualified and licensed medical practitioner in possession of a valid registration. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no cogent material on record to show complicity of the petitioner with the offence in question. Learned counsel has submitted that all the material has already been taken into possession by the investigating team and, MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----34815 34815 34815 34815----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 thus, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. It has been urged that as per Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, no prosecution under Chapter IV of the Act shall be instituted by a police officer other than an Inspector, therefore; any police report filed after investigation of such FIR cannot be treated as valid complaint or prosecution under the said Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that from the factual matrix of the case in hand, no offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has contended that the mere presence of the petitioner at the premises in question, or the fact that she is the owner thereof, cannot, by itself, attract the provisions of Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither found rendering any medical treatment personally nor was any patient found to have been treated by her. Furthermore, no prescription, medical certificate, or medical opinion has been signed or issued by the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Ashok Kumar Union of India versus Ashok Kumar Union of India versus Ashok Kumar Union of India versus Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Sharma and others Sharma and others Sharma and others, (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases, 674 (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases, 674 (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases, 674 (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases, 674, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Revacure Lifesci Revacure Lifesci Revacure Lifesci Revacure Lifesciences LLP and others versus State ences LLP and others versus State ences LLP and others versus State ences LLP and others versus State Government of NCT Delhi and others Government of NCT Delhi and others Government of NCT Delhi and others Government of NCT Delhi and others, CRL. M.C. 2085/2021 CRL. M.C. 2085/2021 CRL. M.C. 2085/2021 CRL. M.C. 2085/2021, decided on 23.09.2025 23.09.2025 23.09.2025 23.09.2025 and the judgment of this Court in Gaurav Chawla versus State of U.T., Gaurav Chawla versus State of U.T., Gaurav Chawla versus State of U.T., Gaurav Chawla versus State of U.T., Chandigarh Chandigarh Chandigarh Chandigarh, CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----23951 23951 23951 23951----2022 2022 2022 2022, decided on 07.12.2023 07.12.2023 07.12.2023 07.12.2023. 3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the status report by way of an affidavit dated 07.07.2026, has opposed the grant of MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----34815 34815 34815 34815----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It has been stated as under in paras-6 & 7 of the aforesaid status report: ““““6. 6. 6. 6. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER AND EVIDENCE THEREOF ROLE OF THE PETITIONER AND EVIDENCE THEREOF ROLE OF THE PETITIONER AND EVIDENCE THEREOF ROLE OF THE PETITIONER AND EVIDENCE THEREOF That the Petitioner is a named accused in the present case. That during the course of investigation, it has surfaced that the accused/Petitioner was found maintaining and operating M/s Shaheen Clinic situated at C-1535, Jannar Manzil, 33 Feet Road, SGM Nagar, Faridabad and practising in the medical field without possessing any prescribed medical qualification, degree, diploma or registration certificate. That she was posing herself as a doctor, charging money for treatment, administering medicines to patients and stocking various drugs, instruments and equipment used in medical practice and delivery of pregnant women without holding any valid registration as an RMP or a valid drug licence. The accused/Petitioner has also failed to disclose the source and sale/purchase records of the stocked drugs. Furthermore, the particulars of the patients visiting the clinic were being kept concealed. The OPD register recovered from the clinic did not contain the addresses or contact numbers of the patients, and no details regarding their identity or whereabouts were maintained therein. The recovery memo with respect to the articles recovered is annexed as Annexure R Annexure R Annexure R Annexure R----1111. 7.7.7.7. That the accused/Petitioner has deliberately taken a false and misleading plea in the present petition by asserting that the clinic was being attended and operated by Dr. Zainul Aabedeen, a duly qualified medical practitioner, and that she was merely the owner of the premises. However, during investigation, the statement of Dr. Zainul Aabedeen was recorded, wherein he categorically stated that he had never opened any private clinic at the premises of the Petitioner, had never visited the said clinic and had never authorised the Petitioner or any other person to use his name or DMC registration certificate for running the clinic. He further stated that his DMC certificate had been sent by him only on the request of the Petitioner's son for the limited purpose of showing the same and that the same had been misused by the Petitioner for running the clinic in question. Thus, the stand taken by the Petitioner in the present petition is demonstrably false and is contrary to the material collected during investigation, thereby disentitling her from the equitable and discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The witness statement of Dr. Zainul Aabedeen is annexed as Annexure R Annexure R Annexure R Annexure R----2222....”””” 4.1. It is, thus, argued that given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, if she is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----34815 34815 34815 34815----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 6. As per the prosecution case and the material available on record, prima facie, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is borne out from the prosecution case that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR in question. The petitioner faces serious allegations of practicing as a doctor and stocking allopathic medicines without possessing the requisite qualifications. The Court below while declining the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner noted that the petitioner was found present at the premises during the inspection and that the allopathic medicines and medical instruments were seized in her presence. The inspection report as well as the inventory of the seized medicines bear signatures of the petitioner, thereby reflecting her presence at the spot. It has further been noted by the Court below that the unauthorized practice of medicine by unqualified persons has become a matter of serious concern, particularly in rural areas, where unsuspecting members of the public often seek treatment from such persons under the belief that they are qualified medical practitioners. Such illegal practice poses a grave threat to public health and safety and, therefore, ought not to be encouraged under any circumstances. 6.1. It is also the case of the prosecution that statement of Dr. Zainul Aabedeen was recorded during the course of investigation, wherein he categorically stated that he had never opened any private clinic at the premises of the petitioner, had never visited the said clinic, and had never authorised the petitioner or any other person to use his name or DMC registration certificate for running the clinic. He further stated that he had sent his DMC registration certificate only at the request of the petitioner’s son for the limited purpose of showing the same, and that the said certificate had subsequently been misused by MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----34815 34815 34815 34815----2026 2026 2026 2026 6666 the petitioner for operating the clinic in question. Thus, according to the prosecution, the stand taken by the petitioner in the present petition is demonstrably false and contrary to the material collected during the course of investigation, thereby disentitling her the relief of anticipatory bail. 6.2. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. 7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ““““6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third- degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----34815 34815 34815 34815----2026 2026 2026 2026 7777 and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”””” 8. In view of the seriousness and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, the investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is being sought for effective investigation and to unearth the prosecution case. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 20 July 20 July 20 July 20, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment