Dr. Anant Ram vs State of Haryana

CRM M-24622 of 2015 1
CRM M-24622 of 2015
Date of decision : 02.09.2015
Dr. Anant Ram
State of Haryana
Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG Haryana.
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.
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 vs. State of Punjab and anr. 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.
Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
plea. According to him, petitioner was called by the investigating
CRM M-24622 of 2015 2
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 `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 vs. 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
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It appears that information was received by the police
regarding certain illegal abortions being carried out in Hisar. A
team of doctors was thereafter constituted. The team took the help
of the police and a decoy customer namely Seema Devi, who is 3-4
months pregnant was sent to the hospital. A raid was conducted on
the premises in question. Co-accused Jaibir and Dharminder were
arrested at the spot. During investigation, it was found that Jaibir
and Dharminder acted in connivance with Parveen who was working
in AMC hospital, Hisar owned by Dr. Anant Ram (petitioner herein).
Accused Parveen was arrested. She disclosed that another lady
Deepika Sharma had undergone abortion at AMC hospital.
Resultantly, statement of Deepika Sharma was recorded under
section 164 Cr.P.C. She disclosed that `15,000/- were taken from
CRM M-24622 of 2015 3
her for conducting her abortion as she was told that she had a
female fetus in the womb. She clearly stated that abortion was
done by Dr. Anant Ram (petitioner herein). Details of investigation
have been given in the affidavit dated 10.08.2015 filed by the
investigating agency.
Keeping in view nature of allegations, I am of the
considered view that no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made
out. Judgment in Dr. Tejinder Pal Singh Multani’s case (supra)
cannot help the petitioner as same was petition for quashing of FIR.
In the said case, court had dealt with provisions of section 28 of the
Act. There can be no dispute with the proposition that section 27 of
the Act permits registration of FIR by the police as by virtue of
same every offence under the Act has been made cognizable and
non-bailable. In Dr. Arvind Pal Singh Gambhir’s case (supra) it has
been clearly held that under section 27 of the Act, investigation of
an offence is permissible. In the eventuality cognizance is taken by
the police in terms of section 27 of the Act, normal procedure of
investigation would follow. However, investigating agency would
thereafter comply with section 28 of the Act and submit a complaint
in terms thereof. It is evident that alleged racket prevalent in the
State for using pre-natal diagnostic techniques and illegal abortions
needs to be unearthed. Thus, there is no ground made out for
grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.
September 02, 2015 (RAJAN GUPTA)



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