1 2025:CGHC:57784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1798 of 2025 Dr. Girish Verma S/o Khemlal Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 49, 05 Vidhyut Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Supela, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. This 5rst anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been 5led by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1240/2025 registered at Police Station – Supela, District – Durg (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 74, 75(1)(ii) and Section 79 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.10.2025, at about 8:00 p.m., the complainant, who was nine months pregnant, visited Image Diagnostic Centre, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, for an ultrasound examination to be conducted by the present applicant, Dr. Girish Verma. It is alleged that ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 19:13:03 +0530 2 during the said medical examination, when the complainant was lying on the bed behind a curtain, the applicant behaved in an indecent manner and made certain objectionable physical contact with her. Based on her written complaint dated 17.10.2025, a case bearing Crime No. 1240/2025 was registered at Police Station Supela, Durg, and the police registered an FIR against the applicant for o=ences under Sections 74, 75(1)(ii), and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and have taken up the matter for investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that during the entire medical examination, the complainant’s mother-in-law and a female sta= member were present in the room, and no incident of harassment or molestation occurred. During the examination, the complainant further requested the applicant to conduct a fetal/embryo examination, which is strictly prohibited under law. The applicant declined to perform such an unlawful test, adhering to professional obligations and statutory norms. Aggrieved by this lawful refusal, the complainant subsequently lodged a false and motivated complaint as an afterthought, solely with the intent to harass and malign the applicant. He further submits that throughout her pregnancy, the complainant had been regularly visiting the applicant’s diagnostic centre for ultrasound and other examinations and had never expressed any grievance or discomfort regarding the applicant’s conduct. Her consistent prior conduct shows that the applicant has always maintained professionalism and ethical standards. The sudden 5ling of the present complaint immediately after the applicant’s refusal to conduct the prohibited examination clearly indicates that the allegation is malicious and an afterthought. He also submits that the applicant is an established and 3 reputed radiologist with an unblemished career of over 17 years. The allegations made by the complainant are wholly false, concocted, and motivated, arising from misunderstanding or ulterior intent. No credible evidence, either direct or circumstantial, supports the allegation of any criminal act or intent. He submits that on the date of the alleged incident, the complainant was accompanied by her mother-in-law and brother-in- law, and a nurse was present in the sonography room. The procedure was conducted behind a partial curtain in accordance with standard privacy norms. In such circumstances, the commission of the alleged acts is inherently improbable and lacks plausibility. During an ultrasound examination of a nine-month pregnant woman, physical proximity and placement of equipment near the lower abdominal area are medically necessary steps. These medically mandated actions have been misconstrued, resulting in false allegations against the applicant. He further submits that the copies of Medical Council Registration Certi5cate, Diagnostic Center License and Registration Certi5cate have also been annexed with the present anticipatory bail application. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the complainant, who was nine months pregnant at the time of incident, visited Image Diagnostic Centre, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, for an ultrasound examination by the applicant, Dr. Girish Verma. It is alleged that during the examination, while the complainant was lying on the bed behind a curtain, the applicant behaved indecently and made objectionable physical contact with her, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the case diary, prima facie it appears that the complainant had requested the applicant to conduct a fetal/embryo examination, which is strictly prohibited under law. The applicant declined to perform such an unlawful test in adherence to professional obligations and statutory norms. Aggrieved by this lawful refusal, the complainant subsequently lodged a false and motivated complaint as an afterthought, solely with the intent to harass and malign the applicant. Further, copies of the Medical Council Registration Certi5cate, Diagnostic Centre Licence, and Registration Certi5cate have been annexed with the present anticipatory bail application. The applicant also has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, without commenting further on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Dr. Girish Verma, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OEcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he 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) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he 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 his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be veri5ed by the trial Court. 5 (e) he shall not involve himself in any o=ence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek