1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1562 OF 2009 1. Suhas Ramkrishna Londhe, 2. Vaishali Suhas Londhe, R/o. Vatsalya Narsing Home, Kharadi-Mundhava Road, Kharadi, Pune ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for applicants. Smt. R.R. Mane, APP for State. Mr. A.Z. Gandhi, Advocate for original complainant. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 12th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in crime No. M- I-91/2009 of Sangamner Police Station, Dist. Ahamednagar. The offences alleged against the accused in this case are punishable under sections 498-A, 313 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 2. The facts are quite peculiar and are required to be stated in detail. Complainant is a married woman, whose marriage took place on 1st May 2007 with accused No. 1 Kailash. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of accused No. 1 Kailash. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the present applicants who are medical practitioners residing at Hadapsar, Dist. Pune. Complainant Yogita lodged her complaint on 20th April 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner. 2. The gist of her complaint is as under. She said, after her marriage on 1st May 2007, she went to reside with her husband and in laws at Hadapsar. But, soon they started harassing her for demand of dowry. She gave many instances as to how she was physically abused. She said, in April 2009 while she was pregnant for the second time (she has first child, aged about 1 years), her in laws asserted that she should terminate her second child because it was a girl child. When she refused to agree for termination, her husband physically abused her so much so that due to the assault she lost one tooth. On 11th April 2009 complainant made phone call to her father who is resident of Ashwi, Tal. Sangamner and asked him to come and pick up her etc. Accordingly, her father and one Kishan came to Hadapsar on the same day. But, they could not take the complainant home because the in laws of the complainant gathered bullies of localities, who threatened the father and his companion. On 14th April 2009 the in laws and the husband of the complainant told her that they 3 would fix a new tooth for her and she should go to applicants' hospital. She was brought to the hospital and the complainant alleged that without her consent the applicant No. 1, who is a gynecologist, terminated her pregnancy. Thereafter, on the same day she was discharged and she went home. On that day, the complainant's father again came to Hadapsar. This time he made complaint to Police Station in respect about the illtreatment given to the complainant. The police called the in laws of the complainant at Police Station and thereafter, the father of the complainant took her at his house at Ashvi. After 3-4 days the husband of the complainant Kailash visited her at village Ashvi, thereatened and abused her. But, thereafter on 20th April, 2009 the present complaint was lodged. 3. It is clear that the present applicants are not accused of harassing the complainant over the demand of dowry etc. The only allegation against the present applicants is that they caused the complainant's abortion without her consent. The learned A.P.P. Smt. R.R. Mane tried to point out that the applicants did not take consent of the complainant in "proper format" and thereby committed the offence. But, applicants have annexed the case papers and consent form signed by the complainant with this application. The case papers indicate that on 13th April 2009, complainant Yogita had visited the applicant No. 1 with complaint of abdominal pain etc. Again on 14th, she went with the similar complaint. The applicant No. 1 examined her and noted that she 4 was suffering from 'incomplete abortion'. Thereafter, on 14th she was treated surgically. It is not the case of the prosecution that the in laws of the complainant shared their intention with the applicants to forceably terminate the pregnancy of the complainant. Had the applicants noticed at the time of treatment that there was rift going on between the patient and her in laws, they would have been certainly mention it in the case papers. Had the complainant not shown her willingness for this intimate medical examination and treatment, they would have certainly mention it in the case papers and probably, in that case they would not have treated her. In other words, without the complainant's co-operation, the treatment given by the applicants to her, was not possible. It appears that this is essentially a dispute between the complainant Yogita and her in laws and unnecessarily the applicants are dragged in it. The applicant No. 2 is apparently not concerned with the case because she was not responsible for treating the complainant. This, in my view, is a appropriate case where protection of anticipatory bail should be extended to the applicants. The applicants, in the event of their arrest, shall be released on bail of Rs. 5000/- each with one surety in the like amount. [ A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ] ssc/1562.09