Apex Court grants interim protection in Lucknow FIR but questions petitioner’s failure to prominently disclose pending criminal cases
In a significant order, the Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to a senior doctor facing criminal proceedings in an alleged fraud case linked to a medical trust and a pharmaceutical company. While extending interim protection, the Court expressed concern over the petitioner’s failure to clearly disclose his criminal antecedents in the plea filed before the Apex Court.
A Bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Shree Chandrashekhar issued notice on the doctor’s petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Hazratganj Police Station in Lucknow. The Court directed that the doctor be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest and instructed him to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection
The Bench ordered that, until the next hearing, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail if arrested in connection with FIR No. 62/2026 registered at Hazratganj Police Station, Lucknow Central (Lucknow Commissionerate), under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The Court also made it clear that the petitioner must cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 24, 2026.
Dispute Linked to Pharma Company and Medical Trust
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the dispute arose from a pharmaceutical company, Dawa Khana, in which the petitioner’s son and the complainant each held a 40% stake. According to the petitioner, the company had been acquired to supply medicines to hospitals operated by a charitable trust.
The counsel argued that the petitioner-doctor was never a director of the company and had no role in its management. He further submitted that after vendors approached the doctor over unpaid dues, he examined the company’s affairs, allegedly discovered financial irregularities, and subsequently lodged a criminal complaint against the complainant.
The petitioner also contended that the complainant later resigned as a director, new directors were appointed, and the required filings were made with the Registrar of Companies. It was also pointed out that other directors in the case had already obtained interim protection from the Allahabad High Court.
Doctor’s Counsel Cites Seniority and Medical Career
The petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that the doctor is a senior citizen who has served several medical colleges and hospitals across Uttar Pradesh since 1985. He argued that references made by the Investigating Officer regarding the petitioner’s termination from the Animal Husbandry Department a day before retirement had no relevance while considering interim protection.
Respondent Raises Issue of Criminal Antecedents
Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court without making a complete disclosure of his criminal antecedents.
The respondent submitted that the issue had also been raised before the Allahabad High Court, where objections were made regarding the petitioner’s reliance on interim relief granted to other directors without revealing his own pending criminal cases.
According to the respondent, the petitioner had earlier been named in another FIR involving allegations of forgery, opening unauthorised bank accounts, and diversion of trust funds. It was also argued that despite these proceedings, the petitioner merely stated before the Supreme Court that he had “no active criminal trials and no serious criminal history,” instead of fully disclosing all pending cases.
Supreme Court Stresses Complete Disclosure
During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned why the petitioner had not presented all pending criminal cases in a clear and prominent manner in the petition.
When the petitioner’s counsel argued that the matter was a quashing petition and that no further disclosure was necessary, the Bench disagreed, observing that litigants cannot “tuck away” such information elsewhere in the pleadings. The Court emphasized that any disclosure regarding criminal antecedents should be made upfront in the synopsis to ensure complete transparency.
The Bench also declined to consider submissions regarding the respondent’s antecedents, observing that those issues were not relevant to the limited question of granting interim protection in the present case.
