ANANT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him under sections 3, 3A, 5, 6 and 23 of PNDT Act, 1994 and sections 315, 420, 417/120B IPC at police station City Hisar, District Hisar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the crime. Petitioner is a reputed doctor of the city and his custodial interrogation is not required. He has relied upon the judgment of this court in : CRM M-10163 of 2014 titled as Dr. Tejinder Pal Singh Multani v. State of Punjab and anr., 2015 2 RCR(Cri) 399 to contend that only appropriate authority can take action under the Act. He does not dispute power of the investigating agency to register an FIR. According to him, thereafter only a complaint can be filed before the appropriate authority.

(3.) Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the plea. According to him, petitioner was called by the investigating agency number of times but he did not disclose anything. During investigation, statement of another victim namely Deepika Sharma was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. who stated that Rs. 15,000/- were taken for her check up by co-accused Rajesh. Thereafter, she was taken to AMC hospital on 10.06.2015 where her fetus was aborted. He has relied upon judgment of this court in CRM 33595- M of 2008 titled as Dr. Arvind Pal Singh Gambhir v. State of Punjab & anr. to contend that section 27 of the Act permits registration of FIR and police has every right to investigate the matter thereafter. Referring to reply filed by way of affidavit of Jaipal Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, City Hisar, he submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the entire racket of determination of sex of the fetus and abortion thereafter.