Court cites applicant's control over hospital, suppression of prior criminal record, and risk of evidence tampering as grounds for refusal
In a significant ruling dated September 30, 2026, the Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Zakir Ali Khan, the licensee and manager of Galaxy Hospital, implicated in a case involving illegal abortion leading to the death of a 22-year-old woman, Alia Chand Sayyad. The judgment was delivered by Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar.
The case arose from Crime No. 1467 of 2025 registered at Ghatkopar Police Station, following the death of Alia Sayyad after an abortion was performed at Galaxy Hospital. The prosecution alleged that the abortion was conducted by Mr. Mehtab Jakir Ali Khan, the son of the applicant, who was not a qualified medical doctor but a third-year MBBS student. The abortion was carried out without proper consent and led to complications due to retained fetal tissue, ultimately causing Alia's death.
Although Zakir Ali Khan was not named in the FIR, the police contend that he exercised complete control over the hospital through a Leave and License Agreement dated August 10, 2024, making him responsible for ensuring statutory compliance and employing qualified medical staff. The prosecution further highlighted that the applicant permitted his unqualified son to perform medical procedures, thereby breaching legal and medical standards.
The applicant's counsel argued that Zakir Ali Khan had no direct involvement in the incident, was not present during the operation, and was merely the licensee of the hospital premises. They asserted there was no evidence warranting custodial interrogation and sought anticipatory bail on these grounds.
However, the court found merit in the prosecution's concerns, especially given the serious nature of the offence under Sections 90 and 105 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court noted that the investigation against Zakir Ali Khan had not been completed, and custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full extent of his involvement.
Another critical factor influencing the court's decision was the suppression of prior criminal antecedents by Zakir Ali Khan. The applicant failed to disclose an earlier FIR (No. 1271 of 2022) registered for a similar offence involving illegal medical operation and the death of an infant at a nursing home operated by him and his son. Citing the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Zeba Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026 SCC Online SC 188), the court held that non-disclosure of such antecedents amounted to suppression, constituting a valid ground to deny bail.
Furthermore, the court expressed apprehension that Zakir Ali Khan, due to his dominant control over the hospital, could tamper with hospital records and influence witnesses, thereby jeopardizing the investigation. The statements of hospital staff, including a nurse named Shirin Mohmad Ramzan Khan, indicated that the unqualified son of the applicant had indeed conducted the illegal abortion.
Given these considerations, the Bombay High Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail would be an abuse of the process of law and declined the application. The judgment underscores the judiciary's stern approach toward illegal medical practices and the responsibility of hospital management to ensure lawful and qualified medical care.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail can be refused where illegal abortion leading to death was conducted in hospital under applicant's control, applicant prima facie permitted an unqualified person to perform operation, investigation against applicant is pending, there is likelihood of tampering with hospital records and influencing witnesses, and criminal antecedents were suppressed in bail application.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 90, 105, 3(5); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 304 (referenced for prior FIR)
Zakir Ali Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992744
