Anticipatory Bail Denied in Medical Negligence Death Case: P&H High Court Emphasises Need for Custodial Interrogation

Case Name: Indu Bala v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M-10733 of 2026

Bench: Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases involving serious allegations of medical negligence resulting in death, particularly when investigation is at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and effective probe.

Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in an FIR registered under Sections 105 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging medical negligence leading to the death of a patient.

As per the prosecution, the deceased had undergone delivery at the petitioner’s clinic, following which complications arose. It was alleged that despite lacking appropriate qualifications, the petitioner conducted the medical procedure and prematurely discharged the patient without adequate care, resulting in her death. It was further alleged that the petitioner demanded money and attempted to suppress the incident.

The petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated and that the death was natural. It was argued that there was a delay of three days in registration of the FIR, no specific overt act was attributed to her, and the allegations were vague and motivated. The petitioner further submitted that she was a qualified BAMS practitioner with long experience and that no recovery was to be effected from her.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that the allegations were grave and involved unauthorized medical practice leading to death. It was further argued that the investigation was at an early stage and custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the full extent of involvement of the petitioner and co-accused.

The Court, upon considering the rival submissions, observed that the allegations prima facie disclosed serious lapses amounting to medical negligence with fatal consequences. It emphasized that in such cases, the nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the requirement of effective investigation, are crucial factors while deciding anticipatory bail.

The Court reiterated that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective and cannot be substituted when serious allegations require thorough investigation. Granting pre-arrest bail at this stage, the Court held, may hamper the investigation and undermine the seriousness of the allegations.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, holding that no case for grant of such relief was made out in light of the gravity of allegations and the requirement of custodial interrogation.