Delhi HC Dismisses Interim Bail in POCSO Rape Case After Doctor Found to Have Misrepresented Rank in Medical Report
Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected eight-week interim bail for an accused in a minor rape case, finding the jail medical report suspect and current treatment adequate at super-speciality hospitals.
The High Court of Delhi on 10 August 2026 dismissed an application by Yogesh @ Monu @ Harvinder seeking eight weeks of interim bail on medical grounds in a case involving the alleged rape of a minor girl. Justice Girish Kathpalia, sitting singly, found that the medical status report submitted by the jail appeared procured, that the doctor who signed it as “Senior Medical Officer” did not hold that rank, and that the actual Senior Medical Officer confirmed the accused's condition was stable. The accused faces charges under Section 376 IPC and Sections 6, 9, 10 and 21 of the POCSO Act in FIR No. 201/2021 registered at PS Maidan Garhi.
The Allegation and Bail History
The case against the petitioner is that he raped a minor girl who subsequently gave birth to a child. Paternity of the child was allegedly established through DNA analysis. Both the victim girl and the child later passed away. According to the court, the petitioner had filed repeated interim bail applications after failing to secure regular bail. The present application — Bail Application No. 2334/2026 — was filed on the ground that he was suffering from multiple ailments.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, appearing through video conferencing. The State was represented by Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP, assisted by Inspector Umesh Yadav and SI Vinod Bhati. Ms. Bindita Chaturvedi and Ms. Gauri Kumar appeared as counsel for the father of the deceased victim.
The Medical Report and the Misrepresentation of Rank
On 13 July 2026, the court had directed the Senior Medical Officer to appear personally to explain the medical status report dated 6 July 2026, noting it appeared unusually long. The SMO was directed to appear on 27 July 2026 with complete medical records, and jail authorities were simultaneously directed to provide the best possible treatment in the interim. Neither the SMO nor any pairvi officer from the jail appeared on 27 July 2026, prompting fresh directions for appearance of both the SMO and the Jail Superintendent.
On 10 August 2026, the matter was called three times. In the first two calls, Jail Superintendent Mangal Sain was present but the SMO was absent. A doctor named Dr. Sahil appeared in his place. It emerged during hearing that Dr. Sahil had signed the medical status report dated 6 July 2026 describing himself as Senior Medical Officer, a designation he does not hold. When confronted, Dr. Sahil stated that doctors in the jail “always sign such reports declaring themselves as Senior Medical Officer.”
The court did not accept this explanation. The judgment records that the concluding portion of the report clearly described Dr. Sahil as Senior Medical Officer — not “for Senior Medical Officer” — and the covering page of the report also bore that description. Dr. Sahil's submission that the stamp he used carried his designation as Medical Officer Incharge was dismissed as irrelevant given what both pages of the report stated.
Beyond the question of rank, the court observed that the report itself read more like advocacy than a medical document, with its contents oriented toward making a case for the petitioner's release rather than providing a neutral clinical assessment.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Kathpalia identified two central questions. First, whether the medical status report could be relied upon given the identity and rank of its signatory. Second, and more practically, whether releasing the petitioner on interim bail would actually result in better medical care than he was already receiving.
On the second question, the actual Senior Medical Officer, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, who appeared only in the third call, stated that the accused's medical condition was presently stable and that he had not suffered any further seizure or bleeding. The court accepted this position.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the accused had a right to treatment from a doctor of his choice. The court did not reject the right in principle but asked counsel to specify which doctor or hospital the petitioner intended to consult privately. Counsel was unable to answer and sought time to obtain instructions. The court took note of this inability.
Taken together, the court found no basis to grant interim bail: the medical report was of doubtful authenticity, the treating SMO had confirmed a stable condition with treatment already being administered through super-speciality government hospitals, and the defence had not identified any specific private medical care that would be better.
Direction to Jail Authorities
While dismissing the application, the court directed jail authorities to continue ensuring the best possible medical treatment for the petitioner, describing such treatment as his fundamental right. The court also left open the possibility of the petitioner filing a fresh application once he was in a position to identify the specific doctor or hospital from which he wished to seek private treatment.
A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Director General (Prisons) for information and necessary action.
Order
Bail Application No. 2334/2026 was dismissed on 10 August 2026 by Justice Girish Kathpalia of the High Court of Delhi. The jail authorities were directed to continue providing the best possible medical treatment to the accused. Liberty was granted to file a fresh application upon identification of a specific private doctor or hospital. The order was also forwarded to the Director General (Prisons).