Delhi HC Rejects Medical Bail After Jail Doctor Signs Report as Senior Medical Officer Without Holding Rank

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has rejected an eight-week interim bail plea on medical grounds filed by POCSO accused Yogesh, after questioning a jail medical report signed by a doctor as “Senior Medical Officer” despite the doctor not holding that rank. Justice Girish Kathpalia also noted that the accused was already receiving treatment at government super-speciality hospitals and that the jail's actual Senior Medical Officer found his condition stable.

The order was passed on August 10, 2026, in Yogesh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 2334/2026, arising from FIR No. 201/2021 registered at Maidan Garhi police station. The case involves allegations under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 6, 9, 10 and 21 of the POCSO Act.

Also see: Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Kerala Dental HoD in Student Suicide Case, Says Allegations Are "Inhuman"

The Delhi High Court medical bail proceedings focused heavily on a medical status report dated July 6, 2026.

The court had earlier directed the jail's Senior Medical Officer to personally appear and explain the report and the ailments cited by the accused. During the August 10 hearing, Dr. Sahil appeared and it emerged that he had signed the report describing himself as the Senior Medical Officer, although he did not hold that rank.

Dr. Sahil reportedly told the court that jail doctors routinely signed such reports using the Senior Medical Officer designation. The court rejected that explanation as “certainly not acceptable.”

The court noted that the report did not merely state that Dr. Sahil had signed it on behalf of the Senior Medical Officer. Its covering and concluding portions identified him as the Senior Medical Officer. The court also noted that the stamp used by Dr. Sahil carried the designation “Medical Officer Incharge,” but considered that insufficient to explain the representation made in the report.

The court also questioned the nature of the jail medical report itself.

It observed that the report was unusually lengthy and appeared “rather a procured one,” with its contents seemingly advocating the accused's case for interim bail.

At the same time, the court examined whether release from custody would actually provide better medical care. The report itself indicated that the accused was already receiving treatment at government super-speciality hospitals.

The court therefore sought clarification from the actual Senior Medical Officer.

Also see: Thane Doctor Assault Case: Shiv Sena Corporator Ramesh Mhatre Granted Bail; Three Co-Accused Remain in Jail

Dr. Rakesh Kumar, the actual Senior Medical Officer, eventually appeared before the court and informed it that the accused's medical condition was stable.

The court recorded that the accused had experienced no further seizure or bleeding and was already receiving treatment at super-speciality hospitals.

The defence argued that the accused had a right to receive treatment from a doctor of his choice. However, when the court asked which doctor or hospital he intended to approach, counsel could not identify one and sought time to obtain instructions.

The court ultimately found no sufficient basis to grant the requested medical interim bail.

It dismissed the application while directing jail authorities to continue providing the accused with the best possible medical treatment, which the court recognised as his fundamental right. The court also directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Director General (Prisons) for information and necessary action.

The court left open the possibility of a fresh application if the accused identifies a specific doctor or hospital for private treatment.

The underlying case concerns allegations that the accused raped a minor girl who subsequently gave birth to a child. According to the prosecution's case recorded in earlier proceedings, DNA analysis allegedly established his paternity. The victim and the child later died. The accused had previously sought regular and interim bail before filing the present application.

The allegations remain subject to the judicial process and should not be treated as a finding of guilt.

(Rh/ARC/MSM)