* 1 * ABA.639.2011 1.8.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 639 OF 2011 Dr. Sangita P. Parmale ...Applicant V/S. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent * * * * * Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Mr. Ranjeet Patil i/by. Mr. Atul Kore, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State-respondent. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 1st August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is a second application for grant of anticipatory bail. The first application of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court by its order dated 15th July, 2011. 2. The applicant is a Doctor who holds a degree of BHMS. She runs a hospital by name Indira Clinic. It is the prosecution’s case that on 19th March, 2011 a woman by name Sakshi Desai who was 16 weeks pregnant was admitted to the applicant’s clinic. She was carrying a female foetus. The female foetus carried by her was aborted by * 2 * ABA.639.2011 1.8.2011 administering medicines as well as by inserting catheter in the womb. The complaint in respect of the illegal abortion came to be filed on 20th March, 2011. The other accused in the complaint is Dr. Shakil Mahabari who was involved with detection of the sex of foetus. He also recommended Sakshi Desai to the clinic of the applicant. On 20th March, 2011 an FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 313 Indian Penal Code, under Section 3 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Technicques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 and under Section 5 of the Bombay Nursing Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant’s hospital has not been authorized to carry out the abortions and the applicant had not maintained any case papers of abortion. 3. The Sessions Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail of the applicant with following observations :- 8. “ A perusal of papers of investigation shows that a board of Dr. Shakil Mahabari was found displayed on the clinic of applicant. This fact goes to show that the applicant had collusion with Dr. Shakil Mahabari. Besides this the medical equipments and the foetus of female was found in the clinic. The applicant is BHMS and she had not obtained any license from Government and her clinic is not authorized to carry on abortions. All these aforesaid facts and circumstances are indicative to show that the applicant without having any authority and without writing any case paper about the abortion carried out abortion. The written consent of patient Sakshi Desai was neither obtained nor case paper to that effect was produced. The role attributed to applicant is quite different * 3 * ABA.639.2011 1.8.2011 than role of Dr. Shakil Mahabari. Hence, applicant is not entitled to release on ground of parity. If the Doctors like applicant who are indulging in such illegal abortions are released on anticipatory bail, wrong message will go to society. In my opinion, such persons who are illegally causing abortions of female foetus must be dealt with severely. Under these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get discretionary relief of grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is dismissed” 4. I am in complete agreement with the observations of the learned Sessions Judge. The complaint against the applicant being of very serious nature and affecting the Society at large, I am not inclined to exercise discretion of grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]