Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Doctor Accused Of Raping Dalit On-Duty Nurse At Midnight

Post By 24law
March 1, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to a doctor accused of raping a 20-year-old Dalit nurse at midnight inside his cabin in a private hospital. The alleged incident occurred in August 2024, while the victim was on night duty at the hospital. The Court, however, granted bail to the co-accused—a nurse and a ward boy—who allegedly assisted the doctor in committing the offence.

Court’s Observations on Bail Plea

A bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava dismissed the bail application of Dr. Shahnawaj, while allowing bail to Mehnaz (a nurse) and Faizan (a ward boy). The Court held: “…insofar as the appellant Dr Shahnawaj is concerned, he is the principal offender, though he is in jail since 19.8.2024 but no good ground is made out to enlarge him on bail at this stage… Insofar as accused appellants- Smt Mehnaz and Faizan are concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.”

Prosecution’s Case

According to the prosecution, on the night of August 17, 2024, Dr. Shahnawaj allegedly called the nurse into his cabin. When she refused, she was forcibly escorted by two co-accused. Once inside, the co-accused locked the door from outside, and the doctor allegedly raped her. Her mobile phone was also snatched to prevent her from seeking help. The accused were booked under the following provisions:

Sections 61(2), 64, 351(2), 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS)

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act

Arguments Before the High Court

Defense Arguments

The counsels for the accused argued that:

The accused have been falsely implicated in the case.

The CDR report and CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer do not corroborate the prosecution’s version in material terms.

The pathology and lab reports also do not support the prosecution's case.

Dr. Shahnawaj had no motive to commit the crime.

The victim did not mention any prior incidents of harassment in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS.

Prosecution’s Stand

Opposing the bail pleas, the State’s counsel argued:

The accused knew the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, and the crime was committed with full knowledge of this fact.

The CCTV footage contained incriminating views.

The delay in lodging the FIR was justified as the victim hesitated to report the crime due to the shame and social stigma attached to such incidents.

Court’s Verdict

After hearing both sides, the High Court ruled: “Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, insofar as the appellant Dr Shahnawaj is concerned, he is the principal offender, though he is in jail since 19.8.2024 but no good ground is made out to enlarge him on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant Dr Shahnawaj is affirmed and the Criminal Appeal No. 11765 of 2024 filed by him is dismissed.”

However, the Court granted bail to Mehnaz and Faizan, observing: “Insofar as accused appellants- Smt Mehnaz and Faizan are concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.”

Conditions for Bail

While granting bail to Mehnaz and Faizan, the Court imposed the following conditions:

They must not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

They must not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

They must appear before the trial court on all dates unless exempted.

They must not commit a similar offence while out on bail.

They must not make inducements, threats, or promises to dissuade witnesses from testifying.

The Court further stated: “In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.”