Fast-Track Court Permits Return for Academic Purposes, Imposes Strict Restrictions on Contact with Witnesses
In a significant development in the alleged ICU rape case that shook Goa’s healthcare sector, a fast-track court in Panaji has relaxed the bail conditions of a doctor accused of sexually assaulting a female patient in the intensive care unit (ICU) of a private hospital, allowing him to return to the institution solely for the purpose of completing his postgraduate medical education.
The order was passed by Special Court Presiding Officer Pooja Kavlekar, who permitted the accused doctor to attend academic activities related to his Diplomate of National Board (DNB) course in General Medicine. However, the court imposed stringent restrictions and made it clear that the doctor would not be allowed to visit the hospital for any purpose beyond his educational requirements without prior permission from the court.
The doctor was arrested in May 2025 following allegations that he raped a woman admitted to the ICU of a private hospital in Goa. He was subsequently granted bail in October 2025 with conditions that barred him from entering the hospital premises and prohibited any attempt to influence witnesses connected to the case.
Seeking relief from these restrictions, the accused approached the court and informed it that he had enrolled in the DNB General Medicine programme at the hospital in 2023. According to his plea, he had been unable to participate in academic sessions since September 2025 due to the bail conditions, placing his medical education at risk.
The doctor further submitted that he received a show-cause notice from the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) in April 2026, warning that his admission could be cancelled if his absence exceeded one year.
While considering the application, the court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations and emphasised the need to safeguard the interests of the survivor. At the same time, it observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.
The court noted that the survivor had not yet appeared before the police to record her statement, indicating that the judicial process could take a considerable amount of time before reaching its conclusion. Observing that the matter may take years to be finally adjudicated, the court held that the accused could not be indefinitely prevented from pursuing his educational programme.
To ensure the integrity of the investigation and trial, the court imposed strict safeguards. The accused has been directed not to establish contact with doctors and nurses named as witnesses in the chargesheet, except where interaction is necessary for professional or academic purposes. The court also prohibited him from tampering with any documents, records, or evidence available at the hospital that may be linked to the case.
Additionally, the court clarified that after completing his degree and related academic formalities, the accused shall not visit the hospital for any other reason without obtaining prior permission from the court until the case is finally decided.
The case continues to draw attention from the medical community and legal observers, as it raises critical questions regarding the balance between an accused person’s right to education and the need to protect the integrity of criminal proceedings in cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault within healthcare institutions.
