Pre-arrest bail plea of KEM doctor rejected in sexual harassment case

MUMBAI: A court denied anticipatory bail to Dr. Ravindra Deokar, accused of sexual harassment by six female doctors, citing potential victim influence.

MUMBAI: The sessions court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Dr Ravindra Deokar, a professor in the forensic medicine and toxicology department at KEM Hospital, who was accused of sexual harassment by six female doctors at the hospital.

(Shutterstock)

The additional sessions judge, in an order passed on April 23, observed that there was a possibility that many more victims had suffered at the hands of the doctor but silently endured it. “For fair opportunity of investigation to the investigating officer, the applicant cannot be granted anticipatory bail,” observed Judge Gauri Kawdikar.

According to the police, the complaint was initially filed by a 32-year-old assistant professor who alleged that Deokar repeatedly made inappropriate comments and physical advances, especially when she wore a saree. She also described instances where he touched her inappropriately during official functions and examinations. Five other doctors came forward with similar allegations, stating that Deokar behaved inappropriately during a Holi function, seminars and casual outings.

The doctors initially complained to Deokar’s wife and later approached the hospital authorities before filing a police complaint. Deokar was then suspended and barred from entering the hospital premises.

Deokar’s advocate argued that a false FIR had been registered against him, and there was an inordinate delay in registering the FIR as well. He submitted that the complaint was filed due to personal grudges and internal politics. The advocate also alleged that Deokar was on several committees and used to question the complainant doctor when she arrived late.

The prosecution argued that the doctor and his wife had pressured the victims to withdraw the complaint, adding that they had already produced screenshots of this. The advocate for the complainant submitted that the doctor tried to contact the victims and arrange a meeting through their colleague.

The court observed that there were missed calls and messages from the doctor to his alleged victims. “Thus, it is clear that the applicant is directly or indirectly trying to influence or pressurise the victims. In other words, there is a strong possibility of hindering the investigation by the applicant,” said additional Judge Kawdikar. The court added that this was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail “due to his interference in the investigation by trying to contact the victims directly or through his wife or through his colleagues”.

Judge Kawdikar said that since the doctor held a high position, he could influence the victims. She also observed that given the possibility of many more victims who were yet to come forward, there needed to be a space for them to come forward freely without any pressure or undue influence.