The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently granted bail to a Budgam-based doctor accused of attempting to rape a woman patient during a medical examination at a government health centre [Dr. Abdul Majeed Bhat V/s Union Territory of J&K].

Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani passed the order granting bail to a Dr. Abdul Majeed Bhat, a medical officer posted at a Primary Health Centre (PHC) in Budgam, who had remained in jail since January 14, 2026.

In the May 14 order, the Court acknowledged that the allegation against the doctor was serious.

“The offence charged against the petitioner/accused is heinous in nature and highly anti-social."

However, it also observed that important witness statements in the case had been recorded by the trial court and that the accused doctor had remained in jail for five months.

"The petitioner/accused has been in custody in the case since 14.01.2026 i.e for about five months. He is supposed to have been badly suffering on account of his continued detention in the case. The trial of the case is going on and the statements of some material witnesses including the complainant are believed to have been recorded at the trial," the order reads.

The Court, therefore, granted the doctor bail on various conditions.

It also noted that doctors hold a position of trust, and that they are generally protected under law for acts done during bona fide medical examinations.

“There is no second opinion that the doctors are respected and trusted as noble men on the earth and there always is a relationship of trust and confidence between the patient and doctor. A Medical Practitioner for the purpose of bona fide medical examination and procedure avails the protection under law in justified circumstances."

The case concerned an incident from January this year.

A woman (complainant) had approached a health centre for treatment of gynaecological ailments. She alleged that during the visit, the on-duty doctor took her to another room for examination and refused to allow her sister-in-law to accompany her despite her request.

The woman claimed that while examining her, the doctor asked her to remove clothes, grabbed her breast and attempted to sexually assault her. According to the complaint, she resisted and managed to escape, following which criminal proceedings were initiated and the doctor was arrested on the same day.

The doctor eventually moved the High Court seeking bail. He denied the allegations levelled against him and maintained that he was innocent. His counsel argued that the sexual assault allegations arose from a misunderstanding during the medical exam.

He added that there were contradictions between the original complaint and later statements recorded during investigation, to question the credibility of the complaint.

Notably, the initial complaint only accused the doctor of attempting to rape the complainant. During investigation, the complainant also said that the doctor had reached inside her clothes and touched her private part, thereby committing the offence of rape.

Opposing the doctor's bail plea, the J&K administration had argued that the allegations were grave and involved abuse of a fiduciary and dominant position by a doctor against a woman patient seeking medical care.

It was further contended that offences against women have serious social consequences. The government's counsel also expressed apprehensions that the accused might influence witnesses or intimidate the complainant if he were released.

The Court, however, noted that the investigation had already concluded and that trial had commenced. The Court observed that some material witnesses, including the complainant, have been examined by the trial court as well.

The Court further pointed out that while the prosecution repeatedly referred to the allegations against the doctor as involving the act of rape, the accused had actually been charged only with the offence of attempt to commit rape.

“It is very needful to mention that the final report/challan in the case FIR in question has already been presented before the Court under Section 62/64 BNS. The Section 62 BNS relates the punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. It as such clear from the perusal of the final report/challan that the petitioner/accused is alleged to have attempted the commission of rape punishable under section 64 BNS. However, the respondent/UT in its objections has inter alia pleaded that the petitioner/accused is involved in the commission of rape as defined under Section 63 of the BNS," the High Court observed.

The Court eventually opined that there appears to be no compelling need for the doctor to remain in jail. The Court added that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. It reiterated that bail is the rule in criminal cases, and that any concerns about witness or evidence tampering can be addressed by imposing bail conditions.

“Having regard to his social position as a Doctor, he is not believed to misuse the concession of bail, if granted in his favour. The apprehensions of the prosecution can however be met by imposing reasonable bail conditions. The object of the bail is to give the accused in custody of a surety who will be required to subject himself to the final outcome of the trial of the case,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the High Court granted bail to the doctor subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds of ₹1 lakh, remaining present during trial proceedings, not leaving India without prior permission, refraining from influencing witnesses, and avoiding any contact or intimidation of the complainant.

The doctor was represented by advocate Umar Rashid Wani.

The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was represented by Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh.

[Read Order]