Zakir Ali Khan Cannot Disown Illegal Abortion In His Hospital: Bombay High Court Rejects Bail

The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Zakir Ali Khan, the licensee of Galaxy Hospital in Mumbai, holding that he cannot disown an illegal abortion that took place on his premises. Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar observed that Khan, as the person in control of the hospital, was duty-bound to ensure qualified staff were employed, and his failure to do so connected him directly to the offence.

A Deadly Procedure Without a Qualified Doctor

The case stems from the death of 22-year-old Alia Chand Sayyad, who was six months pregnant when she was admitted to Galaxy Hospital between 24 and 29 September 2025. An abortion was performed on her by Mehtab Jakir Ali Khan—the applicant’s son and a third-year MBBS student without a medical degree. The procedure led to complications: an infection developed, and when Alia was transferred to S. N. Hospital for surgery, doctors discovered that parts of the undeveloped foetus had been left inside her abdomen. She died on 29 September 2025.

The FIR, registered under Sections 90 and 105 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), named Mehtab and the deceased’s husband. Zakir Ali Khan was not initially named, but the investigation revealed that he held the leave and license agreement for Galaxy Hospital and exercised full control over its operations.

Arguments Over Control and Knowledge

Khan’s counsel, Adv. Arun Mishra, argued that his client was not present during the abortion, had no knowledge of the incident, and was only being implicated because of the hospital’s license being in his name. He submitted that no overt act was attributable to him and that anticipatory bail should be granted.

The State, represented by APP Bapu V. Holambe, opposed the plea vehemently. It pointed to the statement of nurse Shirin Mohmad Ramzan Khan, who confirmed that Mehtab performed the operation. The prosecution further highlighted that Khan had allowed his unqualified son to operate despite a similar case in 2022—FIR No. 1271 of 2022—where a newborn died after an operation by Mehtab at another facility run by Khan. The State argued that Khan’s custody was essential for further investigation and that he posed a risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Court's Reasoning: A Licensee's Duty Cannot Be Evaded

Justice Khubalkar rejected the contention that Khan had no connection to the offence. "The entire incidence of illegal abortion has taken place at Galaxy Hospital , which is in the control and supervision of this applicant," the court noted, pointing to the leave and license agreement dated 10 August 2024 . The judge emphasised that Khan, as licensee , was " duty bound to ensure that the hospital is being run by complying with all the statutory requirements and by engaging qualified medical practitioners and nurses."

The court also took a serious view of Khan's failure to disclose the 2022 FIR in his bail application, calling it a "suppression of criminal antecedents" in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zeba Khan Versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2026 SCC Online SC 188). This non-disclosure, the court held, weighed heavily against granting discretionary relief.

Key Observations

The court made several pivotal remarks while denying bail:

  • "Since the illegal abortion was done in Galaxy Hospital which is under control of this applicant, it cannot be accepted that the applicant has no connection with the offence in question."
  • "The offence is very serious in nature and its gravity needs to be considered while considering the applicant’s prayed for anticipatory bail ."
  • "The material evidence related to the offence, being the records of the Hospital, statements of witnesses and other material evidence are likely to be manipulated by this applicant."
  • "Considering the dominant position of the applicant in the hospital, who is likely to influence the witnesses, I am of the firm opinion that anticipatory bail if granted to the applicant would be grossly abused."

Final Decision and Implications

The court rejected the anticipatory bail application, concluding that Khan’s dominant role in the hospital, the seriousness of the offence—resulting in a death—and the risk of witness tampering made custodial interrogation necessary. The judgment reinforces the principle that a hospital licensee cannot distance himself from illegal medical procedures conducted on his premises, especially when they are performed by unqualified individuals. It also underscores the importance of full disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail proceedings, with suppression proving fatal to the applicant’s case. The investigation against Khan remains ongoing, and the State is now free to take him into custody.