Bombay High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail To Galaxy Hospital Licensee In Illegal Abortion Death Case
The Bombay High Court has held that a hospital licensee cannot disown an illegal abortion conducted by an unqualified person merely by claiming that he had not performed any “overt act”, while rejecting anticipatory bail to the licensee of Galaxy Hospital. The Court observed that the applicant, who had control and supervision over the hospital, was duty-bound to ensure that it was being run in compliance with statutory requirements and that qualified medical practitioners and nurses were engaged.
Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 90 and 105 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR alleged that a six-month pregnant woman was admitted to Galaxy Hospital, where an abortion was performed by Mehtab Jakir Ali Khan, who did not possess a medical degree; after complications developed, the woman died.
The applicant submitted that he was not named in the FIR, was not present when the woman was operated upon and had no knowledge of the incident. He contended that merely because the Leave and License Agreement of the hospital was in his name, he could not be implicated in the offence. The State opposed the application, submitting that the applicant had entire control and management of Galaxy Hospital and had allowed his son Mehtab, a third-year MBBS student without a medical degree, to perform the operation.
The Court noted that though the applicant contended that he had not done any 'overt' act, the entire incident had taken place at Galaxy Hospital, which was under the applicant's control and supervision. The Leave and License Agreement dated August 10, 2024 showed that the premises had been taken by the applicant as licensee to run the hospital and, therefore, it prima facie appeared that he had control and management of the establishment.
The Court further noted that Mehtab was not a qualified doctor and that he had been allowed to conduct operations in the hospital despite not being medically qualified. The Court therefore rejected the applicant's contention that he had no connection with the offence.
“… the applicant was duty bound to ensure that the hospital is being run by complying with all the statutory requirements and by engaging qualified medical practitioners and nurses… since the illegal abortion was done in Galaxy Hospital which is under control of this applicant, it cannot be accepted that the applicant has no connection with the offence in question,” the Court observed.
The Court emphasized that the offence is very serious in nature and its gravity needs to be considered while considering the applicant's prayed for anticipatory bail. It further noted that the applicant failed to disclose that a similar FIR had earlier been registered concerning the death of an infant following an operation performed by Mehtab.
The Court additionally noted that, given the applicant's control and supervision over the hospital, the hospital records, witness statements and other material evidence were likely to be manipulated and that there was an apprehension that he could influence or pressurise witnesses.
Holding that the offence was serious and that anticipatory bail, if granted, was likely to be abused, the Court rejected the application.
Case Title: Zakir Ali Khan v. State of Maharashtra [Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1781 of 2026]