After Five Months in Jail, Kashmir Doctor Bailed Out in Attempted Rape in Hospital case  | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to a Budgam-based doctor accused of attempting to rape a woman who had approached a government health centre for treatment, observing that “bail not jail” remains the governing principle in cases where continued custody is not necessary for investigation or trial.

Justice Mohamad Yousuf Wani passed the order on May 14, 2026, in Bail Application No. 15/2026, filed by Dr Abdul Majeed Bhat through his wife Rukhsana Yossof. The judgment was uploaded on May 15 after the matter had been reserved on March 12.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Umar Rashid Wani, while the Union Territory of JK was represented by Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh.

Dr Abdul Majeed Bhat, a resident of Kremshora in Budgam district, was arrested on January 14, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 10/2026 registered at Police Station Khan Sahib under Sections 62 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to attempt to commit rape.

According to the prosecution case placed before the court, the complainant, identified as Mst. Dilshada Akhter of Gurwaith Kalan, had gone to the Primary Health Centre at Gurwaith for treatment of a gynecological ailment. The prosecution alleged that the on-duty doctor asked her to enter another room for examination, refused to allow her sister-in-law to accompany her, and then allegedly attempted to sexually assault her during the examination process.

The court order records that the complainant alleged the doctor “asked her to put-off her clothes with evil intention to rape her” and also “grabbed her breast.”

Police subsequently registered the FIR and arrested the doctor on the same day. During investigation, statements of the complainant, her sister-in-law and health centre employees were recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The investigating agency also seized outpatient and attendance registers from the health centre and involved the Forensic Science Laboratory team during the investigation.

In his bail plea, the accused doctor denied the allegations and argued that the complainant had initially approached the PHC for treatment of gynaecological infections and had consented to medical examination. The defence contended that the complainant later “doubted the bonafides of the petitioner as a doctor” and lodged the complaint under a mistaken impression.

The defence further argued before the High Court that there were contradictions between the original complaint and subsequent police submissions during investigation. Advocate Umar Rashid Wani submitted that while the FIR alleged an attempt to rape, a later police report referred to allegations suggesting actual rape, thereby materially changing the prosecution narrative.

The petition also stressed that the challan had already been filed before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Budgam, and therefore, custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Opposing bail, Deputy AG Bikramdeep Singh argued that the accused had abused a position of trust as a medical practitioner and that the allegations were grave in nature. The prosecution maintained that the offence carried serious social consequences and that release of the accused could lead to intimidation of witnesses or interference with the trial.

The prosecution also relied upon several Supreme Court judgments including State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Dipak Shubhash Chandra Mehta v. CBI to argue that courts must exercise caution while granting bail in serious offences against women.

After hearing both sides, Justice Wani observed that the offences invoked did not attract the statutory embargo on bail under Section 480 of the BNSS and noted that the accused had remained in custody for nearly five months.

“There appears to be no compelling need for the petitioner/accused in custody,” the court observed.

The High Court further said: “The petitioner/accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty at the trial. He also has a constitutional guarantee of his liberty under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The court also referred extensively to Supreme Court precedents on personal liberty and bail jurisprudence, including the principle laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand that “bail not jail” is the basic rule unless there exists apprehension of absconding, witness intimidation or obstruction of justice.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the High Court said the investigation had been completed and the trial was already underway, with statements of some material witnesses having reportedly been recorded.

“There is no second opinion that the doctors are respected and trusted as noble men on the earth and there always is a relationship of trust and confidence between the patient and doctor,” the court observed, while also noting that a medical practitioner enjoys legal protection during bona fide medical examination procedures in justified circumstances.

Allowing the petition, the court granted bail to Dr. Bhat subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs 1 lakh each. Two near relatives are required to stand surety for the accused.

The court also imposed several conditions, including that the accused shall not leave India without permission of the trial court, shall not influence witnesses, and shall not “directly or indirectly” confront or intimidate the prosecutrix.

The High Court clarified that its observations should not be construed as prejudging the merits of the criminal case, which will be decided during trial proceedings before the competent court.