IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35693 of 2009 KAULESHIYA DEVI Wife of Rameshwar Mahto R/O Bahadinpur, Police Station Paroo, District Muzaffarpur. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 18/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner herself a lady and thus knowing the gravity of the injury caused to another lady carrying pregnancy, if she has been made an accused for the offence under section 313 of the Indian Penal Code, her case has to be viewed with all seriousness. There is no iota of doubt from the corresponding materials in the case diary as also the medical certificate produced by the petitioner herself that the wife of the Informant had suffered injury on account of which five month old pregnancy got aborted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, made a brilliant effort to make out a case that such abortion could be on account of any other reason and not necessarily due to the alleged assault as stated in the First Information Report. She has also tried to explain that on 24th January when the wife of the Informant was taken to a doctor, abortion had not taken place and in fact when the doctor herself had referred to Muzaffarpur Medical College Hospital on 27th January, it 2 has to be understood that the abortion was not occasioned due to the alleged assault on her person. The answer to all these well developed defence of the petitioner can however be found under the medical science where that the abortion of a pregnancy is a continuing process and if a pregnant lady receives injuries if may not necessarily immediately lead to full and final abortion and would depend on the gravity of the injury. There has been consistent evidence on this aspect that the lady, wife of the Informant, was subjected to assault by the petitioner which ultimately led to her abortion. It is sad that the victim has suffered in the hands of another lady i.e. the petitioner who should have known the significance of the delicate stage of a woman in the crucial period of pregnancy of five months. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner till she would complete her judicial custody for a period of one year. That being so, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected for the present with a liberty to renew prayer for bail after completing one year of her judicial custody. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)