J&K High Court Grants Bail to Doctor Charged with Attempted Rape at Primary Health Centre, Budgam

Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani admitted Dr. Abdul Majeed Bhat to bail after five months in custody, finding the charge under Section 62/64 BNS did not attract the Section 480 BNSS embargo and that no compelling custodial need remained once the challan had been filed and trial commenced.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has admitted a government doctor to bail in a case alleging attempted rape of a patient at a Primary Health Centre in Budgam. Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, sitting singly, pronounced the judgment on 14 May 2026 in a successive bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, Dr. Abdul Majeed Bhat, had been in continuous custody since his arrest on 14 January 2026. The court found that the offence charged was attempt to commit rape under Section 62 read with Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which does not carry a sentence of death or imprisonment for life in the alternative, and therefore falls outside the embargo under Section 480 of the BNSS. With the final report already filed and trial under way before the Additional Sessions Judge, Budgam, the court concluded that continued detention served no compelling purpose.

The Incident and FIR

On 14 January 2026, Mst. Dilshada Akhter, wife of Nazir Ahmad Najar of Gurwaith Kalan, went to Health Centre Gurwaith-Kalan for treatment. According to her written complaint received by Police Station Khan Sahib, the on-duty doctor asked her to enter a separate room, refused her request to allow her sister-in-law to accompany her, asked her to remove her clothes, grabbed her breast, and attempted to commit rape upon her, from which she escaped after resisting.

On the basis of that complaint, FIR No. 10/2026 was registered under Sections 62 and 64 of the BNS. The Investigating Officer, accompanied by an FSL team from DPL Budgam, visited the scene, prepared a site plan, conducted a medical examination of the victim, and recorded witness statements. Copies of the out-patient register and the staff attendance register of the health centre were seized. Dr. Abdul Majeed Bhat was identified as the on-duty doctor and arrested the same day. He has remained lodged in Central Jail Srinagar as an undertrial since then.

During investigation, the police submitted a report dated 22 January 2026 to the court in connection with an earlier bail application. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that this report described the accused as having placed one hand on the chest of the victim and another hand inside her private part which projected commission of rape rather than the attempt to rape alleged in the FIR. The defence argued this internal contradiction in the prosecution's own material undermined the case against the petitioner.

The victim's sister-in-law, Ishrat wife of Reyaz Ahmad Najar of Gurwait Kalan, and two employees of the health centre also gave statements under Section 183 of the BNSS. The final report/challan was subsequently filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Budgam, and the accused was formally charged on 25 March 2026 for the offence punishable under Section 62/64 BNS.

Rival Contentions Before the High Court

Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Umar Rashid Wani, Advocate, advanced several grounds. He argued that the complainant's FIR account and her subsequent statements during investigation were materially contradictory. He contended that a doctor conducting a gynaecological examination is protected by the statutory exception relating to medical examination under Section 63 of the BNS. He submitted that the petitioner was presumed innocent, that his continued detention from 14 January 2026 amounted to pre-trial conviction, and that the trial was already proceeding before the Trial Court, removing any investigative necessity for custody. He also invoked the constitutional test of “necessity of custody” under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Union Territory of J&K, represented by Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, resisted bail on multiple grounds. The prosecution emphasised that the petitioner was a Medical Practitioner in a position of trust and dominance over a patient who had approached him for treatment, making the offence aggravated in nature. It argued that the maximum sentence could extend to imprisonment for life, that there was a reasonable apprehension of witness intimidation if the accused were released, and that the material collected during investigation including statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS, clearly reflected the accused's involvement. The prosecution also relied on State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 for the parameters governing bail in non-bailable offences, and on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 178 for the requirement to record reasons while granting bail in serious offences.

The Court's Reasoning on Bail Principles

Justice Wani set out the legal framework at length before applying it to the facts. The court reiterated that in non-bailable offences not carrying a sentence of death or imprisonment for life in the alternative, bail is the rule and its denial the exception, particularly where custodial questioning is no longer necessary and there is nothing to suggest the accused will tamper with evidence or abscond.

The court drew on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447 for the proposition that the basic rule is bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances of fleeing from justice, thwarting the course of justice, repeating offences, or intimidating witnesses. It cited Gur Bakash Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632 for the principle that no single circumstance can be treated as of universal validity for justifying grant or refusal of bail, and that the cumulative effect of all circumstances must enter into the judicial verdict.

From Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830, the court extracted the principle that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive, that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless required to ensure the accused stands trial, and that imprisonment before conviction carries a substantial punitive content. The court also referred to Dataram Singh v. State of UP (2018) 3 SCC 22, which held that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised in a judicious and humane manner, and to Pankaj Jain v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 743, which held that heinousness of crime by itself cannot be the sole ground to deny bail if other overwhelming circumstances justify its grant.

The court set out eleven specific considerations to be kept in mind when deciding bail applications, including the nature and circumstances of the case, the reasonable apprehension of witness tampering or investigation being hampered, the balance between individual liberty and larger societal interests, and the fact that at the bail stage the court is not conducting a preliminary trial but only examining whether there is a case to go to trial.

Turning to the specific charge, the court clarified an important distinction. The prosecution's objections had pleaded that the accused was involved in the commission of rape as defined under Section 63 of the BNS. However, as verified from the Trial Court, the accused had been charged on 25 March 2026 only for the offence punishable under Section 62/64 BNS, that is, attempt to commit rape and not for the completed offence. Section 62 BNS relates to punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. The court found that this charge does not attract the embargo under Section 480 of the BNSS, which is confined to offences carrying a sentence of death or imprisonment for life in the alternative.

On the specific facts, the court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 14 January 2026, approximately five months at the time of the order. The final report had already been filed, the trial was proceeding, and statements of some material witnesses including the complainant were believed to have been recorded at trial. The court found there was no compelling need for the petitioner to remain in custody. It accepted that, having regard to his social position as a doctor, he was not believed likely to misuse the concession of bail. The court acknowledged that the offence charged was heinous and highly anti-social, and that doctors occupy a position of trust and confidence with patients, but concluded that the prosecution's apprehensions could be adequately addressed through bail conditions rather than continued detention.

Outcome

Justice Wani allowed the successive bail petition and admitted Dr. Abdul Majeed Bhat to bail in FIR No. 10/2026 of Police Station Khan Sahib, Budgam, for the offence under Section 62/64 BNS. The petitioner is required to furnish surety and personal bonds of ₹1,00,000 each. The surety bond of ₹1,00,000 is to be furnished by two persons from among the near relatives of the petitioner, each liable to the extent of ₹50,000, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and the Superintendent of the Jail concerned.

The bail is subject to the following conditions: the petitioner must remain punctual at the trial; he must not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Trial Court; he must not repeat the commission of any crime; he must not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any unexamined prosecution witness so as to dissuade them from making a true account before the Trial Court; and he must not, in any manner, confront the prosecutrix or subject her, directly or indirectly, to any form of criminal intimidation.

The Trial Court was declared fully competent to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 491 and 492 of the BNSS in the event of violation of any bail condition. The court clarified that nothing in the order shall be construed as prejudging or interfering with the merits of the case, which remain the subject matter of the trial. The order is reportable.