1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2727/2018

BETWEEN:

DR. ANKIT GAUTAM,
S/O MR. CHANDRA PAL,
R/O 17 A, MADHUPURAM COLONY,
BHITARLI KHAND,
IIM ROAD, HSM ROAD,
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH 226020.
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI JATIN SEHGAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HASAN S. HIREMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY SIDDAPURA P. S.,
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 560001.
… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

****
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.13/2018
OF SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 9(e),9(1) AND 10 OF PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AND SECTION
354 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.PC. The

respondent – Police have registered a case against the

petitioner in Crime No.13/2018 for the offences punishable

under Sections 9(e), 9(l) and 10 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 354 IPC.

2. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned High

Court Government Pleader.

3. The complaint was made by Dr. V. Bhadrinarayan,

Medical Superintendent of National Institute of Mental

Health Neuro Sciences, Bangalore about sexual

misconduct committed by the petitioner on a female patient
3

admitted to the said hospital on 9.1.2018 for treatment in

connection with her mental disorder. It is alleged that

petitioner, who is a junior resident doctor in the said

hospital sexually exploited the patient between the dates

10.1.2018 and 18.1.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the

petitioner has been implicated in a false case. The patient

was admitted to the hospital on 9.1.2018 as she was

diagnosed for depressive disorders and post-traumatic

stress disorder. She was under the supervision of an

attendant provided to her by an NGO. It is highly

impossible to say that the girl was exploited by the

petitioner. He refers to a love letter written by the patient

to the petitioner to argue that since he did not respond to

that letter, a false complaint came to be registered. He

further argues that the petitioner has not absconded and

that he was always available at Bangalore and if the

Investigating Officer had issued a notice to the petitioner
4

under Section 41A Cr.PC, he would have appeared before

the Investigating Officer. Even now the petitioner is ready

to cooperate with Investigating Officer. The petitioner has

a threat of being arrested, therefore he is entitled to

anticipatory bail.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits

that the matter is still under investigation. The offences

alleged against the petitioner are serious and anticipatory

bail cannot be granted.

6. If the complaint is read, certain allegations made

against the petitioner can be seen. The love letter

produced by the petitioner is in Hindi. This letter cannot

be considered at this stage. It must be proved that the

letter is in the handwriting of the patient. However it is a

fact that the petitioner was working as a Junior resident

doctor. The other documents produced by the petitioner

show that even after lodging of the complaint, he was very
5

much present at Bangalore. It is difficult to say that after

lodging of the complaint, he was not available for

investigation. As rightly argued by the petitioner’s counsel,

probably he would have appeared before the Investigation

Officer if notice under Section 41A of Cr.PC had been issued

to him. Moreover the interference by the petitioner in

investigation process can be ruled out because he is kept

under suspension. Patient is also under the supervision of

an attendant provided by an NGO. It is not known why the

patient did not bring the misbehaviour of the petitioner to

the notice of authority of the hospital on the very first day.

By considering all these circumstances, I am of the opinion

that anticipatory bail can be granted by subjecting him to

certain conditions. Hence, the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

In the event of arrest of petitioner by the
respondent-police station in connection with
6

Crime No.13/2018, he shall be released on bail
on obtaining from him a personal bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and two
sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of
Investigation Officer. The petitioner is also
subjected to the following conditions:

(i) He shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer during investigation
and he shall appear before the
Investigating Officer whenever his
presence is necessary;

(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence;

(iii) He shall not directly or indirectly
threaten the witnesses; and

(iv) He shall mark his attendance before the
respondent-police station once in a
fortnight, preferably on Sunday in
between 09.00 am and 12.00 noon, till
the investigation is completed.

Sd/-
JUDGE
Gss/-