R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 13215 of 2026 ============================================ JITENDRASINH LALITSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ============================================ Appearance: MR ZUBIN BHARDA with MR DIPESH D SONI(9996) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 04/08/2026 ORDER 1) By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR being CR No.11214021260185 of 2026 registered with Kosamba Police Station, Surat Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(f)(i)(m), 75(2), 88, 89, 94, 54, 115(2) and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (for short “POCSO Act”). 2) At the outset, it is pertinent to note that in the case on hand judicial wisdom prevailed over the money and muscle power, pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2026, passed by the Hon’ble R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 Division Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.267 of 2026, impugned offence has been registered, wherein, it has been observed as under: “1. On 7th of January, 2026, we had issued notice returnable on 13th of January, 2026. 2. On 13th of January, 2026, the Police secured the presence of the Corpus and presented her before us. We interacted with her and we were of the view that she should be kept in the Children Home for Girls, Surat for the present and accordingly she was kept in the Children Home for Girls, Surat. 3. In the writ petition, the father of the corpus has alleged that his daughter who is allegedly 15 years and 8 months old, went missing since 5th of July, 2025 and it is further alleged that she had been illegally confined by the respondent No.3 Gopal. However, the corpus narrates a story, which if true, is shocking. 4. The corpus states that she was being abused by her parents when she was living with them in a rented premises. She also goes on to state that the owner of the rented premises Amjad Sheikh sexually exploited her as a result of which, she conceived. She also states that as a result of the conception, she was about 5 to 6 months pregnant when her parents in collusion with Amjad Sheikh took her to Ashirvad Hospital and made her undergo an abortion. She also states that the said Amjad Sheikh had paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to her parents to keep silent over this issue. 5. The corpus also states that ever since, she is being subjected to repeated abuse by her parents and as a result she was disillusioned with them. She states that she was working in a company along with the respondent No.3 and she confided her difficulties to the respondent No.3 and requested him to stand by her. She submits that the respondent No.3 agreed to stay with her and the corpus decided to flee from the place and requested respondent R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 No.3 Gopal to accompany her. She also states that Gopal acceded to this request and went along with her and she was not under the illegal confinement of Gopal at any point of time. She submits that Gopal had not abducted her and on the other hand, she had basically forced Gopal to come along with her to enable her to escape from her parents. 6. If these facts indeed true, this would reveal that the petitioner who is the father of the corpus is to blame for the operation caused to the corpus. 7. The father of the corpus has not stated anything in the writ petition about the corpus’s allegation that she had been sexually exploited by their landlord Amjad Sheikh and she had to undergo an abortion. The medical examination of the corpus, as of now, reveals that she is more then 16 years old and less than 18 years as of now. The corpus states that she does not have any documentary evidence to indicate as to what is her actual date of birth. 8. In the light of the above facts, in our view, it would be appropriate to direct the concerned Police to undertake a comprehensive investigation regarding allegations made by the corpus about being sexually exploited by Amjad Sheikh and about her abortion and also the receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- by her parents from Amjad Sheikh. 9. It is needless to state that if these allegations are found to be true, necessary proceedings will have to be initiated against all concerned. 10. The corpus states before us that she has no inclination whatsoever to stay with her parents and that she would wish to remain in the Children Home for Girls, Surat. 11. The corpus, as per desire, shall remain in the Children Home for Girls, Surat until further orders. The concerned Superintendent of Police shall personally supervise the investigation to be conducted by the Police and the report R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 should be submitted before this Court within a period of four weeks.” 3) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the offense was registered on 12.02.2026, with Kosamba Police Station, Surat Rural. It is an undisputed and admitted fact that the victim was noticed by the learned Division Bench and as per the statement made by the father on oath, the victim was minor at the relevant point of time. Subsequently, a report was filed stating that she was major at the relevant point of time. Whatever the case may be, it is an undisputed fact that she was of tender age at the time when the offence was committed, as it is alleged that the offense was committed prior to one year and the landlord exploited her. 4) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda with Mr. Dipesh Soni, for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Himanshu K Patel, for respondent – State of Gujarat. 5) Learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda with Mr. Dipesh Soni, for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a practicing Doctor who has been arraigned as an accused no.7, who has been falsely enroped in the present offence. The charge sheet has been filed, and now nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. He has further submitted that there is no allegation of sexual exploitation of the victim against R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 the applicant and the victim was exploited by the landlord which resulted into pregnancy of 5 to 6 months. He has further submitted that the parents of the victim colluded with Amjad Sheikh, took her to Ashirvad / Aram Hospital and forced her to undergo an abortion where the applicant has performed the abortion of the victim. Except this no role is attributed to the applicant. Initially, provisions of POCSO Act was invoked but during the course of investigation the victim was found to be 18 years old, she was sheltered safely at Children Home for Girls, Surat. The applicant is having Aaram Hospital and allegedly he had administered drugs to cause miscarriage without the consent of the victim and handed over stillborn fetus to be secretly dispose of in river but the said allegations are far away from truth. Whatever involvement is on the part of her parents and co-accused and the applicant has only rendered professional service. Therefore, he has requested to allow the present application. 6) Learned APP for the respondent - State has vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that the applicant has actively participated and abetted the offence. The applicant being a Doctor indulged in such illegal activity and two past antecedents are registered against the applicant qua medical negligence. The applicant has helped the co-accused and failed R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 to report the incident to police about commitment of the offence. Though the victim was aged between 16 to 18 years she was repeatedly exploited by the landlord which resulted into pregnancy and matter was settled by her parents by taking Rs.5 lakhs to cover up the crime. The applicant has played active role in her abortion and biological brother is also involved. The involvement of the landlord and settlement by her parents clearly shows involvement and how they covered up the issue. The applicant has also performed miscarriage without the consent of the victim and secretly destroyed the medical record and fetus of stillborn child due to which the Investigating Officer could not collected the DNA samples which obviously helped to the accused. There is every possibility that, if the applicant is released on bail, he will indulge in similar offences and try to tamper with the evidence. Therefore, present application does not deserve consideration. 7) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and going through the investigating papers, it appears that initially the accused No.3 had filed a missing person report about her daughter i.e. the victim alleging that the victim was a minor. But as the police failed to trace out the girl, the accused no.3 – father of the victim had filed Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.267 of 2026 before the Hon’ble Division R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 Bench of this Court. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the victim was traced out along with the accused. Subsequently, sections pertaining to the commission of offense under the POCSO Act were added and charge-sheet came to be filed which culminated into POCSO Case No.39 of 2026. 8) As per the case of the prosecution, the accused no.3 has twin daughters, including the present victim. The date of birth of victim is recorded as 06.08.2004, and the alleged offense is stated to have been committed during the period from 02.12.2024 to 11.05.2025. As the victim was unwilling to stay with her parents and wished to remain in the Children Home for Girls, she was sent to the Children Home for Girls, Surat, pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.267 of 2026. 9) When the victim was traced out by the police pursuant to the order passed in Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.267 of 2026, she was carrying a pregnancy of 5 to 6 months. Further perusing the record, it appears that the parents of the victim settled the dispute by receiving 5 Lakhs towards a settlement from the accused, Amjad Sheikh who is 52 years old. Thereafter, an abortion was performed by the present applicant R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 who is arraigned as accused No.7. After investigation, the allegations against the applicant are that, the victim visited on 09.05.2025 and was admitted as a patient. Allegedly primary treatment was given to control the discharge of bleeding caused by excessive menstruation and the Doctor denied any abortion or further treatment. However, during further investigation, based on the prescription and the opinion of a Gynecologist from Civil Hospital Surat, it was found that the treatment given was specifically for abortion. The specific injections and treatments are as follows: i) Inj-Hytoes (Ceftazidim); ii) Inj-Dynapar; iii) Inj- Amikacin; iv) Inj-Pitocine; v) Inj-Methargin and vi) Inj- Metrogyl. 10) Based on this evidence, it was found that the applicant was aware about the pregnancy of the victim. The victim was carrying a 21 weeks and 5 days pregnancy, which is beyond the permissible limit of 20 weeks under the Medical Termination Pregnancy Act and Rules also. The abortion was performed by the applicant secretly without reporting the offense. Furthermore, the victim was a minor and unmarried at the relevant point of time. Without the consent of the victim and without informing the police about a medico-legal case, the applicant administered medicines and performed the procedure. A stillborn child was delivered and the applicant played an active R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 role along with co-accused in destroying the evidence. The fetus was disposed of in the Kim River and all treatment papers were disposed of from the hospital to prevent the investigating agency from collecting a DNA sample of the stillborn child. As envisaged under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, it was the duty of the doctor to report the offense. However, instead of informing the police about the medico-legal case, the applicant abetted the offense to hush up the entire issue. 11) One important aspect is that the co-accused, Amjad Sheikh, against whom allegations of rape have been leveled, is aged 52 years, who is the landlord in a position of trust and authority towards the victim committed rape repeatedly that too when the victim was incapable of giving free consent and she was otherwise reluctant. Despite repeated instances of rape, the parents acting as guardians failed to protect or rescue the victim. Instead, they entered into a settlement and received 5 Lakhs from the accused and a receipt for this transaction was recovered during the investigation. The statement of the victim was recorded under section 183 BNSS wherein, the victim has substantiated the allegations. Though herein the documents collected qua the age of the victim is illegible and though the report was filed to delete Section 64(2)(i) of BNS, as to whether the said consent was free consent as defined under Section 28 of R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 the BNS / Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, itself is the matter of question of evidence. Hence, argument canvassed by the learned Advocate for the applicant qua consent will not avail any assistance. 12) Considering the seriousness of the offense, the tampering with the evidence including destroying the fetus coupled with past antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of further tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out if the applicant is released on bail. During the hearing, when a query was raised to the learned Advocate for the applicant regarding the gestational period of the victim, the reply given was "1 to 1.5 months gestation period," which was not only false but misleading statement, as the victim was carrying a pregnancy of 21 weeks and 5 days. When second query was raised about the destruction of records, the learned Advocate relied on a register maintained under the PNDT Act indicating a Sonography at Gurudev Ultrasonography and X-ray Clinic at Kosamba. However, this is not pertaining to the applicant's hospital and no other material of treatment was produced that might help the investigation. Further, the learned Advocate for the applicant has done one more vain attempt to show that the patient register is recovered from the Hospital but it is needless to say that under Clinical Establishment Act and even otherwise as per Medical Council Rules, the applicant being R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 the registered Medical Practitioner, it was the duty of the applicant to preserve and maintain the record of the indoor and outdoor patient. In case of indoor patient, details of admission, anesthesia, treatment and other record ought to have been preserved by the Medical Practitioner. In case of Medico Legal Case the Doctor has to preserve respective record for 5 to 10 years or subject to pendency of litigation. 13) In the present case the applicant not only failed to maintain and provide the record to police authority but did not inform the authority though he was fully aware of the fact that the victim is unmarried and gestational period was beyond 20 weeks. If we accept the case that the victim was major even though papers qua consent is also not maintained or produced on record. The applicant actively participated in destroying and cleaning the evidence and the documents pointed out by the learned Advocate for the applicant were irrelevant and not helpful to the applicant. The applicant has committed offence under Sections 88, 89 and 94 of the BNS and the applicant has actively participated and abetted the offence. So far abetment is concerned, the BNS covers many crimes done by one or more persons, where some may be the perpetrators while some may just be aiding the crime. Provoking, encouraging, or aiding someone to covering up offence is a criminal act punishable R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 under the BNS /Indian Penal Code (IPC) as abetment. Anyone who aids or leads the crime cannot use the defence of non- presence of actus reus to get away from the punishment associated with it. Delving into the realm of abetment, it becomes essential to comprehend the profound implications and legal ramifications associated with the offence. The person abetting must have complete knowledge of the crime he or she will commit as a result of the said abetment. In general parlance, abetment by aiding as a crime committed by an abettor when he/she intentionally aids in the facilitation of the conduct of the crime done by the perpetrators as Legal consequences vary depending on act and participation and the severity of the abetted crime. Some times if the offence is committed in consequences of abetment then the longest term of punishment provided for the offence / fine / both qua abetted offence is to be sentenced. Herein the punishment is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and shall also be liable to fine. This Court has considered quantum of punishment of alleged offence also and propensity of tempering witness along with past antecedents. 14) Before parting, it would apposite to say that it's pious duty and R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 obligation of Bar and Bench to uphold dignity of Courts and Majesty of Law. Here in, the learned Advocates for the applicant have twice made vain attempts to mislead this court and that too though attention of learned Advocate was drawn at the first instance though second time, same was repeated without any apology or remorse. Due to this reason with all due respect and honour to the Bar it would be apt to quote and rely on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P.Chadha vs Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors. reported in 2001 (2) SCC 221. As a responsible officer of the Court the counsel have an overall obligation of assisting the Courts in a just and proper manner for the just and proper administration of justice. Zeal and enthusiasm are the traits of success in profession but over- zealousness and misguided enthusiasm have no place in the personality of a professional. An advocate while discharging duty to his client, has a right to do everything fearlessly and boldly that would advance the cause of his client. After all he has been engaged by his client to secure justice for him. A counsel need not make a concession merely because it would please the Judge. Yet a counsel, in his zeal to earn success for a client, need not step over the well defined limits or propriety, repute and justness. Independence and fearlessness are not licences of liberty to do anything in the Court and to earn success to a client whatever be the cost and whatever be the sacrifice of R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 professional norms. A lawyer must not hesitate in telling the Court the correct position of law when it is undisputed and admits of no exception. A view of the law settled by the ruling of a superior Court or a binding precedent even if it does not serve the cause of his client, must be brought to the notice of Court unhesitatingly. This obligation of a counsel flows from the confidence reposed by the Court in the counsel appearing for any of the two sides. A counsel, being an officer of Court shall apprise the Judge with the correct position of law whether for or against either party. 15) Further, in the case of Vijay Syal & Anr v. State of Punjab reported in (2003) 9 SCC 401, the Hon’ble supreme Court has stated in order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the Court, when a Court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts, it does so at its risk and cost. 16) Regarding the dispute over the applicability of the POCSO Act based on an illegible document collected from the Composite R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 School, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, i.e. register entry and certificate issued by it stating date of birth of victim as 06.08.2004 is a question of trial. However, the fact remains that a serious offense was committed within the four walls of a house against a woman and the police and parents initially attempted to hush up the issue. Considering the quantum of punishment, the manner in which the accused took advantage of their positions, tampering with evidence and abetment of offence by the applicant, this Court is of the view that the liberty is not absolute at the cost of societal interest. 17) The liberty of a person should not be dealt with lightly as the liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and cry of the collective for justice. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to rights of others. In the present case, the applicant has abetted the offence which is going to accentuate to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society including interference with the administration of justice, as the accused is having money and muscle power he can do whatever he wants. Therefore, considering past antecedents of the applicant, who is a headstrong person, who has already destroyed and tampered with evidence, the further possibility of tampering with evidence R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 cannot be ruled out if the applicant is released on bail. In view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005)8 SCC 21, and considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, as well as the fact that the victim is yet to be examined, it is not expedient to enlarge the applicant on bail since rape is an extremely reprehensible and heinous crime against society. It defiles and degrades the victim physically and mentally, and it shakes the very core of their life. 18) At this stage, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, is also required to be referred to wherein it has been held that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardized. 19) In the present case, the applicant is having two past antecedents that too similar type of cases related to medical negligence and out of the said two cases, applicant is acquitted in one case and one case is pending. This shows that the applicant is habitual in committing such offences again and again though liberty granted by concerned Courts in earlier offences and if the applicant is released on bail in connection with the present offence, then it R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 would send wrong signal and message to the society and undermines public confidence in judicial system. 20) This Court is conscious about the right to liberty of accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but herein the applicant is having similar nature of two past antecedents. The Court is duty bound to see that although the personal liberty is a fundamental right but is not an absolute right. Liberty must not be given when it threatens the collective interest of the society and no one has the right to put on peril the liberty of others. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2014)16 SCC 508 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that exercise of grant of bail though discretionary in nature cannot be arbitrary, capricious and injudicious and in heinous nature of crime warrants more caution. Even, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, the Court has to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction very cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles. Herein, this Court is of considered view that prima facie involvement and accusation of the applicant is established. R/CR.MA/13215/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2026 21) So far as submission on behalf of the applicant that charge-sheet is filed and nothing is required to be recovered or discovered and no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars is concerned, another important aspect that needs to be considered is that mere filing of a charge sheet is not a sufficient ground to enlarge the accused on bail, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406. If the applicant is released, the possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out. 22) Considering seriousness of offence and involvement of accused, present application being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial since the applicant is an under-trial prisoner. 23) It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the case of the applicant on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the present order. Rule is hereby discharged. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE ONE, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/08/2026 18:15:55