Anticipatory bail granted to medical professional accused of non-reporting under POCSO Act and illegal adoption conspiracy.

The mother of a 15-year-old minor victim lodged a report alleging that her daughter became pregnant following a relationship with another minor.

After the victim delivered a child at Kumud Mohabe Hospital, the hospital staff and other co-accused allegedly conspired to give the infant for illegal adoption to third parties using forged documentation

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, Dr. Vijay Raj Nagwanshi, was aware of the victim's age and the sexual exploitation but failed to report it, further conspiring to create false affidavits and official records to facilitate the illegal adoption

The applicant sought anticipatory bail, contending he was merely a part-time duty doctor who did not conduct the delivery, issue any certificates, or derive financial gain, asserting his actions were a bona fide act under a mistaken belief

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail

The underlying charges included Sections 64(1), 61(2), 337, 338, 339, and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Furthermore, the court considered the mandates of Sections 4 and 21 of the POCSO Act (relating to penetrative sexual assault and failure to report) and Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act regarding illegal adoption procedures

The Court examined the nature of the allegations against the applicant in light of his professional capacity.

It noted the applicant’s defense that as a part-time doctor, he had no direct involvement in the medical procedures or the creation of forged birth records

The Court observed that there were no specific allegations of financial trafficking or material gain against the applicant

Applying the principles of bail, the Court balanced the severity of the charges—conspiracy and non-reporting of a POCSO offence—against the fact that the investigation and trial would be time-consuming

Since the applicant is a permanent resident and committed to cooperating with the investigation, the Court found that custodial interrogation was not strictly warranted, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure a fair trial

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety

The holding was made subject to several conditions: the applicant must not induce or threaten witnesses [para 8(a)], must appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates [para 8(c)], must submit verified identification documents [para 8(d)], and must not commit similar offences in the future [para 8(e)].