The court determined that substantial personal circumstances affecting the applicant's court appearances can warrant the granting of anticipatory bail despite the issuance of prior non-bailable warrants.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Babloo Pant, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 472 of 2023, under Sections 316 , 420, 504, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 15(2), 15(3) of MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT , 1956, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for the informant submits that non bailable warrant as well as proclamation under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against the applicant earlier, therefore, there is no occasion to entertain the present anticipatory bail application and the same deserves to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the midwife nurse in the hospital of the co-accused having no concern with the alleged incident. After filing of complaint the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by the concerned trial court. When the anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court then she approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9657 of 2024 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.10.2024 granted interim protection till the next date of listing, however, this anticipatory bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2025. Now the applicant has filed this second anticipatory bail application after the charge sheet has already been submitted. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no whisper against the applicant in previous four applications moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the informant. The F.I.R. itself is delayed by more than one and half years. The main allegation is against the co-accused and the applicant has been implicated in the case only as she was giving service of nurse in the said hospital under the supervision of the co-accused at the alleged date of occurrence.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as far as objection raised on behalf of informant that the non bailable warrant as well as proclamation under Section 82 /83 Cr.P.C. have already been issued earlier against the applicant is concerned, it is very humbly submitted that though the charge sheet was filed on 09.11.2024 whereupon cognizance was taken on 19.05.2025 and non bailable warrant was issued against her on 10.10.2025 but at that time the applicant was in family way and she gave birth of a male child on 06.10.2025 also. Thus, when the processes were issued she was in family way. After cognizance the applicant also moved several applications on each and every date for exemption of her personal appearance as she was in family way and was unable to appear before the trial court but the learned trial court without considering such application has issued non bailable warrant against the applicant, which is against the natural justice and is also against the dictum followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024, decided on 12.11.2024). In support of his submission the learned counsel placed reliance upon paras-6 to 9 of the said judgment which read as under:

"6. The relationship between the appellant and the deceased is not in dispute. Admittedly, the son of the appellant has been arrested and he is still in custody. It is incorrect to state that pursuant to the interim protection gra