ANIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.38 dated 25.12.2019, registered under Sections 3 , 4 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, Sections 15(2) , 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Sections 312 , 315 , 318 , 420 , 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police station City Safidon, District Jind.

(2.) Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner after reading the FIRs (Annexures P-1 and P-2) would argue that the petitioner herein has been falsely implicated in the present case due to the personal enmity of the professional doctors, who are also running hospitals in the nearby areas. It is submitted that in the eventuality of any contravention in the provisions of IMC Act , provisions of IPC would be applicable. It is argued that after reading the allegations as contained in the FIR, apparently offences punishable under the IPC are not made out and the authorities have intentionally and deliberately invoked the provisions of MTP Act as well as IMC Act without realizing that the orders as well as the constitution of the team of doctors was concerned to the information of PNDT Act, as such, cognizance of the offence under the said MTP Act as well as IMC Act is totally contrary to the provisions and procedure provided under the Act. It is submitted that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences stand fulfilled. It is further contended that the petitioner never indulged in any illegal abortion or miscarriage of any lady and even the hospital of the petitioner never indulged in such like activities. Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon affidavits furnished by Ritu and Annu to the effect that nothing wrong had happened with them.

(3.) Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, while submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that the petitioner along with his co-accused was actively involved in the act of termination of pregnancy in the Leelawati Hospital, Safidon without any authority.