High Court rejects bail in foeticide case

High Court rejects bail in foeticide case

Judgement-   I) Pandurang Jagannath Patil vs state of Maharashtra ordjud

2) Sanjay Balkrishna Shinde vs state of Maharasthra- Sanjay Balkrishna Shinde vs state of maharashtra

The Bombay high court has recently rejected the bail application of a man who was arrested for working as an agent between a doctor and a family to facilitate a sex determination test and later illegal operation of the daughter-in-law at their residence, resulting in her death.

According to the prosecution’s case, Ramchandra Patil, father of deceased Rupali, had filed a complaint with the Shahuwadi police station that her husband and in-laws had illegally determined the sex of the foetus and then terminated the pregnancy of his daughter at their residence. The operation went wrong and his daughter died.

According to the complainant, Rupali was married to Hemant Patil in March 2011 and she was blessed with a baby girl in 2012. Thereafter, in July 2014 Rupali visited her maternal house and informed her parents that she was four months pregnant and her in-laws, who were annoyed with the birth of girl earlier, had forced her to undergo a sex determination test, which confirmed she was again carrying a female foetus.

On July 30 at about 9 pm, Rupali’s father received a phone call from one Maruti Patil who informed him that his daughter had been taken to Saraswati Apple Hospital for treatment in Kolhapur and had not survived.

Later, Mr Patil came to know that Rupali’s husband and in-laws had taken the services of a doctor to terminate her pregnancy at their residence and due to the failure of the operation, she had died and so he filed a police complaint.

The police then arrested the suspects, including doctors and Pandurang Patil for acting as an agent between the doctor and family to carry out the illegal termination of pregnancy. His lawyer argued before the court that his client was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case.

However, Justice Sadhna S. Jadhav accepted public prosecutor Veera Shinde’s arguments that the witness does not have enmity with applicant so there was no reason to falsely implicate him and, as per a call data record, there was exchange of calls between him and a family member that showed his involvement.

The judge, while rejecting the bail plea, observed that the crime was heinous and in the present-day scenario where the courts and Medical Council of India are seriously looking into the ratio of females against males, the defence of the applicant that he was an agriculturist and not aware of the law could not be accepted.

The court said, “This amounts to killing a female foetus as if to say that being a female, she has been denied the right to come into this world.”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s