The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has given an important ruling, stating that once a person is arrested, they cannot seek anticipatory bail, even if they are later granted transit bail. Justice Rajnish R Vyas clarified that anticipatory bail is only available before arrest, and once an arrest has taken place, the option is no longer open to the accused. The Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Dr Ravinderpal Singh Jaspal Singh in a major kidney trafficking case. The case relates to a large-scale kidney racket uncovered in Chandrapur district. It began with an FIR registered at Brahmapuri Police Station in February 2025 after a farmer alleged that he was harassed by moneylenders and forced to sell his kidney to repay debts. The complaint led to the exposure of a wider network involving agents, middlemen and medical professionals operating across different states and even outside India.

 

During the investigation, police found that financially weak persons were targeted and persuaded or forced into organ donation. The racket allegedly involved arranging donors, transporting them and conducting illegal transplant procedures for huge profits. While victims received small amounts, large sums were collected from recipients. The probe also pointed to suspected illegal surgeries in hospitals outside Maharashtra and abroad. Dr Ravinderpal Singh, a Delhi-based surgeon, was later named as an accused. Though not mentioned in the original FIR, his role surfaced during investigation through statements of co-accused and other evidence. Police claim he was linked to transplant procedures and had connections with members of the network.

 

The offences registered include serious charges. As per records, the doctor was arrested in Delhi on December 30, 2025, and produced before a Magistrate. While transit remand was refused, he was granted transit bail on a bond of Rs 50,000 and directed to appear before the Chandrapur court. However, instead of complying, he approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected. He then moved the High Court. The High Court clearly held that anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest remedy and cannot be sought after arrest. It rejected the argument that his arrest was merely a “paper arrest,” noting that all legal procedures were followed, including arrest memo, medical examination, and production before a Magistrate.

 

The Court also observed that once an accused submits to court jurisdiction, it amounts to custody. It criticised the applicant for not appearing before the Chandrapur court as directed. The Court ruled that transit bail does not erase the fact of arrest and concluded that anticipatory bail cannot be granted after arrest. The application was therefore dismissed as not maintainable. Adv S V Sirpurkar appeared for applicant, Sr Adv and GP D V Chauhan assisted by APP U R Phasate for the State.