Gujarat doctor denied bail. He’s accused of an abortion to cover up rape

The woman alleged that she had been subjected to abuse by her parents while the family was living in a rented accommodation in Surat. She told the court that the landlord of the rented home sexually exploited her and that she became pregnant. She also said her parents acted in collusion with the landlord and took her for an abortion when she was over five months pregnant. She alleged that the landlord paid Rs 5 lakh to her parents to buy their silence.

She also said that the man accused by her father of keeping her confined was the person she turned to when she wanted to escape. She said he responded to her desperate call for help, accompanied her after she left home and “stood by her”.

The court found the allegations sufficiently serious to order a “comprehensive investigation” into the alleged sexual exploitation, the abortion and the alleged payment.

The latest chapter came before the High Court in the bail application of the doctor accused of carrying out the abortion. Justice HD Suthar of the Gujarat High Court, earlier this month, held that the doctor’s role, at least at this stage, could not be viewed in isolation from the larger circumstances in which the alleged abortion was carried out.

Rejecting his plea for regular bail, the court recorded the prosecution’s allegation that the doctor had “actively participated in destroying and cleaning the evidence” and had failed to preserve or provide crucial medical records relating to the woman’s admission, treatment and the procedure.

In one of its sharpest observations, the court order states, “The fact remains that a serious offense was committed within the four walls of a house against a woman and the police and parents initially attempted to hush up the issue.”

The court also referred to its earlier intervention of January 15, when the woman was produced before the Division Bench. In the bail order, the High Court described the earlier intervention as an instance of “judicious wisdom” prevailing over “money and muscle power.”

The doctor told the court that he had been falsely implicated. His counsel argued that he had no role in the alleged sexual exploitation and had merely provided professional treatment after the woman was brought to the hospital by her parents and others. He denied participating in any conspiracy or destroying evidence.

The prosecution argued that crucial medical records were missing despite the doctor’s professional obligation to maintain records relating to patients, including their admission, treatment and anaesthesia. The State alleged that the absence of this documentary trail was itself part of the larger attempt to suppress evidence.

The exact age of the young woman at the relevant time remains disputed. While her father initially described her as a minor, subsequent material suggested she was 18. The High Court said whether the case would attract provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act would have to be decided during the trial.

In its orders in the habeas corpus plea, the division bench noted that, “if these facts (are) indeed true”, the father’s role would require scrutiny.

The court noted that allegations of sexual exploitation and abortion had not been disclosed in his habeas corpus petition. The January 15 order directed that the woman, who said she did not want to return to her parents, be placed at the Children’s Home for Girls while the investigation continued. She was eventually moved to the Nari Suraksha Gruh, a shelter for women.

The investigation ordered by the High Court resulted in an FIR and the arrest of several accused, including the doctor.