The Gujarat High Court has rejected a bail application from a medical practitioner accused of conducting an illegal late-term abortion and destroying evidence to conceal the alleged rape of a teenage girl by her landlord.
In an order issued on August 4, Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar ruled that individual liberty cannot supersede the broader welfare of society. The court highlighted allegations that the doctor performed a pregnancy termination at 21 weeks and five days without the minor’s consent, disposed of the stillborn fetus in a river to thwart DNA testing, destroyed hospital logs, and failed to notify law enforcement despite handling a medico-legal case.
Allegations and Background
According to the prosecution, the victim, aged between 16 and 18, was repeatedly sexually assaulted between December 2024 and May 2025 by her 52-year-old landlord, who occupied a position of trust and authority. The repeated assaults resulted in a pregnancy.
During this period, the girl’s parents allegedly entered into a settlement with the landlord and accepted Rs 5 lakh to suppress the matter. Investigating authorities later recovered a receipt documenting the financial transaction.
How the Case Came to Light
The matter surfaced after the girl’s father filed a missing person report and subsequently approached the high court with a habeas corpus petition seeking her production. Upon being located, the teenager refused to return to her family and was placed in a government children’s home.
The prosecution stated that the parents had taken the girl to the hospital and forced her to undergo the procedure, after which the medical records were destroyed and the fetus was discarded into a river to prevent investigators from gathering DNA evidence.
Arguments Presented in Court
Defense counsel argued that the practitioner was falsely implicated and had not sexually exploited the teenager. The defense maintained that the girl’s parents brought her to the medical facility and forced the procedure upon her. The lawyer denied that the doctor administered drugs without consent or secretly disposed of the fetus, asserting that the practitioner merely rendered professional services.
Opposing the plea, Assistant Public Prosecutor Himanshu K. Patel argued that the doctor engaged in illegal conduct and failed to notify the police despite knowing the girl was a minor. The prosecution also pointed out that two prior cases of alleged medical negligence had been registered against the practitioner.
Judicial Observations
In denying bail, Justice Suthar observed that judicial wisdom had prevailed over wealth and influence in uncovering the crime. The judge noted that the doctor appeared to be repeatedly committing offenses and that granting release would send an improper message to the public while eroding trust in the judicial system.
The court also admonished the defense attorneys for attempting to mislead the bench on two occasions, reminding legal advocates of their obligation as officers of the court to present accurate legal facts regardless of whether they favor their client.
Justice Suthar concluded that the filing of a chargesheet does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, reaffirming that personal freedom cannot be granted when it endangers the collective interest of society.
