ABA-276-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.276 OF 2011 Dr. Shakil Mohammadsaheb Mahabari ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mr. Milind Deshmukh, for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 14 TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 1st April, 2011, passed by this Court, the examination of the Sonography Machine in the dispensary of the Applicant was carried out in the presence of several persons. Report in respect of the said examination has been given by the representatives of Magnum Opus Company. The S.I.O.B. (Silent Observer) sticker had been put on the wire connecting the S.I.O.B. and the Sonography Machine and, in the examination, it has been revealed that the sticker has been torn. The information subsequent to 23rd July, 2010, was, therefore, not stored in the S.I.O.B. Machine. The experts, therefore, have opined that either the said ABA-276-11.sxw 2 Dixit Sonography Machine was not used or that the S.I.O.B. Machine had been separated from the Sonography Machine, in which case, it would not reveal that it had been used. In any case, therefore, the examination of the Sonography Machine has not resulted in procuring some material implicating the Applicant. 3. I have gone through the statement of Smt. Sakshi Desai. It is clear that no offence punishable under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, is, prima facie, disclosed as having been committed by the Applicant. As regards the allegation of an offence punishable under the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulations and its Misuse) Act, 1994, the statement of the said Smt. Sakshi Desai does not show that the Applicant had communicated the sex of feotus, or had determined the sex in contravention of the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the said Act. Even in the F.I.R., which has been lodged by a Social Worker, the main allegation is against the co-accused - Dr. Sangita Parmale and the allegation against the Applicant is only to the effect that he directed the said Smt. Sakshi Desai to the dispensary of Dr. Sangita Parmale. That the pregnancy was terminated because the feotus was female, even if accepted, would not indicate that the Applicant had abetted the commission of the said offence, or that he had determined the sex of the feotus, or that he had communicated the sex of the feotus to the said Sakshi Desai, or that he had conducted any test for the purpose of determining the sex of the feotus. 4. The Applicant was already granted interim anticipatory bail by an order dated 1st April, 2011. Considering the nature of the material that is available against the Applicant, I think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to him. ABA-276-11.sxw 3 Dixit 5. The interim order for grant of anticipatory bail is confirmed, on the condition that the Applicant shall report to the Rajarampuri Police Station, Dist. Kolhapur, everyday, between 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., for a period of one week, and, thereafter, as and when required by the I.O. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]