SUBHASH GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of statement made by Ms. Bharti on 18th June, 2010, FIR No.197/2010 Police Station Sarai Rohilla under Sections 313/506/34 IPC has been registered. The relevant portion of the said FIR reads as under:-

(2.) Learned senior advocate submits that the petitioner Dr. Subhash Gupta is entitled to anticipatory bail on the following grounds:-

(3.) I have noticed and reproduced the allegations made by the complainant which has resulted in registration of the FIR No.197/2010. The complainant has made specific allegations with regard to the petitioner, who has been named as Doctor Aggarwal in the complaint. She was forced and coerced to abort the fetus because it was of a girl child. She has made an allegation that her ultrasound was undertaken on the said date i.e. 14th June, 2010. The said hospital or the petitioner has not produced records of the said ultrasound. It is urged that no ultrasound was conducted on the said date i.e. 14th June, 2010. Along with the petition, a hand written consent note dated 14th June, 2010 has been placed on record as Annexure K at page No.71. This purported consent note is signed by the complainant, her mother-in-law and her husband. It is stated that this consent form was prepared by Dr. Wajita. The said hand written note refers to ultrasound in the said hospital.