State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. And Another vs Party(s)

16.07.2025. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged on 19.07.2025 by the Superintendent, CHC Mitauli, against the applicant, his father (Director of the hospital), and two other named doctors.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither the operator (Sanchalak) of Medolex Hospital nor responsible for its day-to-day functioning. The allegation of possessing a forged medical registration certificate has been denied. It is contended that there is no material to establish that the applicant forged the said certificate, nor does the certificate constitute a “valuable security.” It is further argued that the applicant was not involved in the treatment of the deceased patient. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is presently pursuing the B.A.M.S. course from MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puja Manorma Dilip Khedkar v. NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl) No. 357 of 2025, and on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Dr. Swapna Patker v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2281 of 2021, wherein it was held that an allegedly forged Ph.D. certificate would not fall within the ambit of “valuable security” under Section 467 IPC (Section 338 BNS).

7. Perused the record.

8. The allegations against the applicant are that he forged his medical registration certificate and, on the basis of the same, operated a nursing home along with his father, Putti Lal. The hospital is alleged to have been functioning without requisite medical facilities. During treatment, patient Anjali Singh died, and the hospital received Rs. 31,100 /- under the PMJAY scheme for her treatment. The hospital was subsequently sealed by the 3 NABAIL No. 1605 of 2025 complainant, who is the Superintendent, CHC, Mitauli, on 16.07.2025 in the presence of the District Level Team, the Tehsildar, and the District Administration.

9. It is alleged that the patient was shifted to the operation theatre without proper diagnosis and in the absence of Dr. Ram Awadh, which resulted in her death due to cardiogenic shock. The Registrar, Uttarakhand Medical Council, Dehradun, vide its letter dated 19.02.2025, informed the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council that Anil Kumar is not registered with the Uttarakhand Ayurvigyan Parishad. The registration number 12769 shown by the applicant in the National Medical Register pertains to Dr. Kartikay Dixit, who is duly registered with the Uttarakhand Medical Council. On this basis, it is alleged that the applicant forged a registration certificate and used it to operate Medolex Hospital along with his father.

10. The precedent relied upon by the applicant, namely Dr. Swapna Patker (supra), pertains to the use of a forged Ph.D. certificate and arose out of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present matter, however, concerns an application for anticipatory bail, and the considerations for grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different, being of exceptional nature.

11. In the case in hand, the applicant is alleged to have forged a medical registration certificate and used it to run a hospital, during which a patient lost her life due to alleged gross negligence. The gravity of the present offence, wherein a forged certificate was used to practice medicine and operate a hospital, is far more serious than that of forging a university degree. Hence, this is altogether, a different case upon which the applicant is relying than that related to the applicant.

12. The applicant’s plea that Section 338 of the BNS is not attracted because the forged registration certificate does not constitute a valuable security is immaterial, as the applicant would still fall within the ambit of other penal provisions.

13. According to the applicant, he is currently pursuing BAMS, therefore, all the more reason the applicant could not have medical registration certificate from the aforesaid medical registration authority. Further, the hospital has 4 NABAIL No. 1605 of 2025 reported that it treated the deceased, Anjali, and received reimbursement of Rs. 31,000/- under the PMJAY.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Nivrutti Navale v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 235, while rejecting an anticipatory bail application where the accused had allegedly forged a lease deed and made false representations to public authorities to obtain permission to run a school, held that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the material facts and documents. The Court observed:- "16.....At the same time, as pointed out by the counsel for the State and the second respondent complainant, considering seriousness relating corrections/additions/alterations made in various documents, information furnished to the educational authorities which, according to them, are incorrect, we are of the view that in order to bring out all the material information and documents, custodial interrogation is required, more particularly, to ascertain in respect of the documents which were alleged to have been forged and fabricated. In the said documents and other materials which are in the possession of the appellant and the allegation against him that he has made false representation before the public authority on the basis of those documents for obtaining necessary permission, as pointed out by the State, in order to secure possession of those documents, custodial interrogation is necessary. For this reason, the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court rejected the claim for anticipatory bail."

15. In the present case, the applicant forged his medical registration certificate of the Uttarakhand Medical Council and used it for entry in the National Medical Register. The gravity of the allegations is even greater than in Maruti Nivrutti Navale (supra), as the forged medical registration certificate enabled the applicant not only to run a hospital but also to practice medicine, thus posing a direct and grave risk to public health. Had the accused applicant not possessed a forged medical registration certificate, he would have been precluded from practicing, and the tragic death of the innocent Anjali could likely have been averted.

16. In view of the nature of the forgery, the necessity of custodial interrogation, the ongoing investigation, and the apprehension that the applicant may misuse his liberty to tamper with evidence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 5 NABAIL No. 1605 of 2025

17. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. November 15, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

16.07.2025. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged on 19.07.2025 by the Superintendent, CHC Mitauli, against the applicant, his father (Director of the hospital), and two other named doctors.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither the operator (Sanchalak) of Medolex Hospital nor responsible for its day-to-day functioning. The allegation of possessing a forged medical registration certificate has been denied. It is contended that there is no material to establish that the applicant forged the said certificate, nor does the certificate constitute a “valuable security.” It is further argued that the applicant was not involved in the treatment of the deceased patient. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is presently pursuing the B.A.M.S. course from MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puja Manorma Dilip Khedkar v. NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl) No. 357 of 2025, and on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Dr. Swapna Patker v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2281 of 2021, wherein it was held that an allegedly forged Ph.D. certificate would not fall within the ambit of “valuable security” under Section 467 IPC (Section 338 BNS).

7. Perused the record.

8. The allegations against the applicant are that he forged his medical registration certificate and, on the basis of the same, operated a nursing home along with his father, Putti Lal. The hospital is alleged to have been functioning without requisite medical facilities. During treatment, patient Anjali Singh died, and the hospital received Rs. 31,100 /- under the PMJAY scheme for her treatment. The hospital was subsequently sealed by the 3 NABAIL No. 1605 of 2025 complainant, who is the Superintendent, CHC, Mitauli, on 16.07.2025 in the presence of the District Level Team, the Tehsildar, and the District Administration.

9. It is alleged that the patient was shifted to the operation theatre without proper diagnosis and in the absence of Dr. Ram Awadh, which resulted in her death due to cardiogenic shock. The Registrar, Uttarakhand Medical Council, Dehradun, vide its letter dated 19.02.2025, informed the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council that Anil Kumar is not registered with the Uttarakhand Ayurvigyan Parishad. The registration number 12769 shown by the applicant in the National Medical Register pertains to Dr. Kartikay Dixit, who is duly registered with the Uttarakhand Medical Council. On this basis, it is alleged that the applicant forged a registration certificate and used it to operate Medolex Hospital along with his father.

10. The precedent relied upon by the applicant, namely Dr. Swapna Patker (supra), pertains to the use of a forged Ph.D. certificate and arose out of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present matter, however, concerns an application for anticipatory bail, and the considerations for grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different, being of exceptional nature.

11. In the case in hand, the applicant is alleged to have forged a medical registration certificate and used it to run a hospital, during which a patient lost her life due to alleged gross negligence. The gravity of the present offence, wherein a forged certificate was used to practice medicine and operate a hospital, is far more serious than that of forging a university degree. Hence, this is altogether, a different case upon which the applicant is relying than that related to the applicant.

12. The applicant’s plea that Section 338 of the BNS is not attracted because the forged registration certificate does not constitute a valuable security is immaterial, as the applicant would still fall within the ambit of other penal provisions.

13. According to the applicant, he is currently pursuing BAMS, therefore, all the more reason the applicant could not have medical registration certificate from the aforesaid medical registration authority. Further, the hospital has 4 NABAIL No. 1605 of 2025 reported that it treated the deceased, Anjali, and received reimbursement of Rs. 31,000/- under the PMJAY.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Nivrutti Navale v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 235, while rejecting an anticipatory bail application where the accused had allegedly forged a lease deed and made false representations to public authorities to obtain permission to run a school, held that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the material facts and documents. The Court observed:- "16.....At the same time, as pointed out by the counsel for the State and the second respondent complainant, considering seriousness relating corrections/additions/alterations made in various documents, information furnished to the educational authorities which, according to them, are incorrect, we are of the view that in order to bring out all the material information and documents, custodial interrogation is required, more particularly, to ascertain in respect of the documents which were alleged to have been forged and fabricated. In the said documents and other materials which are in the possession of the appellant and the allegation against him that he has made false representation before the public authority on the basis of those documents for obtaining necessary permission, as pointed out by the State, in order to secure possession of those documents, custodial interrogation is necessary. For this reason, the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court rejected the claim for anticipatory bail."

15. In the present case, the applicant forged his medical registration certificate of the Uttarakhand Medical Council and used it for entry in the National Medical Register. The gravity of the allegations is even greater than in Maruti Nivrutti Navale (supra), as the forged medical registration certificate enabled the applicant not only to run a hospital but also to practice medicine, thus posing a direct and grave risk to public health. Had the accused applicant not possessed a forged medical registration certificate, he would have been precluded from practicing, and the tragic death of the innocent Anjali could likely have been averted.

16. In view of the nature of the forgery, the necessity of custodial interrogation, the ongoing investigation, and the apprehension that the applicant may misuse his liberty to tamper with evidence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 5 NABAIL No. 1605 of 2025

17. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. November 15, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench