Bail granted to hospital accountant where professional duties lacked nexus with alleged administrative and medical conspiracy.

The matter arose from a complaint by the mother of a 15-year-old minor victim who became pregnant following an alleged sexual assault by one Aditya Verma.

To conceal the pregnancy and birth, the victim's relatives allegedly moved her to different locations.

Following the delivery of a baby boy at Krishna Hospital, acquaintances of the victim (Ravi and Mona Barve) moved the child to Dr. Kumud Mohabey Memorial Hospital.

It is alleged that the hospital staff and management, including the Applicant (who served as an Accountant), conspired to create forged medical records and a false birth certificate stating that Mona Barve had delivered the child via Cesarean section to facilitate the illegal possession/transfer of the child.

The Applicant was arrested on 13/01/2026.

Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given his role as an accountant and the stage of the investigation.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Sections 61(1) (Criminal Conspiracy), 337, 338, 339, and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Sections 4 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012; and Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 269 of the BNS (regarding non-attendance) and Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding).

The Applicant’s counsel argued that as an Accountant, his duties were strictly financial and he had no authority over medical records or birth registrations.

It was further noted that the child was admitted based on a sworn affidavit by the co-accused Barve couple and the representation of a doctor, and that the delivery itself did not occur at the Applicant's place of employment.

The Court took into account that the charge sheet had already been filed, the Applicant had been in detention since 13/01/2026, and the trial was expected to be protracted.

Consequently, the Court found that the facts and circumstances favored the release of the Applicant on bail, provided strict conditions were met to ensure his participation in the trial.

the Applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present; he must appear at all fixed dates under penalty of Section 269 BNS; and he must be personally present for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS. Failure to comply with proclamation orders would trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS.