Serious allegations that an unregistered practitioner performed a fatal operation warrant refusal of anticipatory bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2026, registered at P.S. Belhar Kala, District Sant Kabir Nagar, under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the BNS.

He argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was delayed, that he had no criminal history, and that a co-accused had received anticipatory bail; he also undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

The State opposed the application, distinguishing the co-accused and asserting that the applicant had operated on the deceased despite not being a registered doctor; it relied on the Chief Medical Officer’s statement recorded in the case diary.

The Court noted that the co-accused owned the hospital but was not part of the operating team, whereas the applicant allegedly operated on the deceased without a valid degree.

1. Whether, in light of the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material described by the Court, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

2. Whether the co-accused’s grant of anticipatory bail supported granting the same relief to the applicant, notwithstanding the difference in their alleged roles.

Section 482 BNSS confers an extraordinary power to grant anticipatory bail, to be exercised cautiously and not as a matter of routine.

The Court relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, for the principles that anticipatory bail is exceptional and requires consideration of the accusation’s nature and gravity and other relevant circumstances.

It also relied on Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, and Sushila Agrawal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, concerning the accused’s role, the nature of the offence, and possible effects on investigation.

The Court further referred to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and stated that the standards for regular and anticipatory bail differ.

The Court treated the applicant’s alleged role as materially different from that of the co-accused: the latter owned the hospital but was not in the operating team, while the applicant was alleged to have performed the operation without being a registered doctor or holding a valid degree.

Having regard to those allegations and the principles governing the exceptional exercise of anticipatory-bail jurisdiction, the Court concluded that the applicant’s case did not warrant pre-arrest protection; the co-accused’s bail did not alter that assessment given the difference in their roles.

Any interim order was vacated, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send the order to the concerned court for forwarding to the investigating officer.