$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 1, 2025 + BAIL APPLN. 4140/2025 & CRL.M.A. 32209/2025 AYAZ AHMAD @ JAVED .....Applicant Through: Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui, Mr. Rakesh Bhugra & Ms.

Alya Veronica, Advs.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State.

SI Pankaj Kasana, PS Anand Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present bail application is filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 383/2023 dated 13.09.2023, registered at Police Station Anand Vihar, for offences under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. The present FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint filed by the complainant, wherein, he alleged that on 25.11.2022, he visited the clinic of the applicant as he was suffering from chest pains for the past two weeks.

3. It is alleged that the applicant advised the complainant to take some test for his lipid profile. It is alleged that on instructions of the applicant accused Subham who claimed to be an employee of S.D. Diagnostics took the blood sample of the complainant, whereafter, the complainant paid accused Subham a sum of ₹500/-.

4. It is alleged that in the evening of 25.11.2022, the complainant visited the clinic of the applicant, whereafter, the applicant informed the complainant that his lipid profile is normal.

5. It is alleged that, however, the complainant was not feeling well after taking medicines prescribed by the applicant and the complainant approached another doctor who advised the complainant to again take a test for his lipid profile.

6. It is alleged that after obtaining the new report the complainant consulted his family doctor who stated that his lipid profile is in a very bad condition and the same may cause serious consequences.

7. It is alleged that the complainant thereafter served notices to S.D. Diagnostics, however, the same got returned back by the Postal Authority.

8. It is alleged that during the course of investigation the applicant joined investigation in the present case. It is alleged that the applicant thereafter preferred an application seeking pre-

arrest bail before the learned Trial Court.

9. It is alleged that during the adjudication of the applicant’s application seeking pre-arrest bail, the applicant submitted a diploma, whereafter, on verification of the same by the authorities the diploma was found to be forged as no such institution existed.

10. It is alleged that during the course of investigation charges under Sections 19/467/120B/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997 were added against the applicant.

11. It is alleged that on 29.05.2025, an application seeking issuance of NBW’s was filed against the applicant, whereafter, on 09.06.2025, the applicant was arrested.

12. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the role alleged against the applicant is only of referring the complainant to the pathological laboratory. He submits that the applicant himself was not aware that the pathological laboratory was being run illegally. He submits that no role can be attributed on the applicant for the co-accused persons illegally running the pathological laboratory.

13. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the present applicant. He consequently prays that the present application be dismissed.

14. It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and the gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; reasonable apprehension of the w