HC junks Safidon doc''s bail plea in MTP case

The High Court has ruled that the custodial interrogation of Dr Anil, allegedly involved in carrying out illegal abortions, was necessary. The state counsel had contended that Dr Anil, along with his co-accused, was actively involved in termination of pregnancy in Leelawati Hospital at Safidon without authority.

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 8

Dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of a Safidon doctor allegedly involved in carrying out illegal abortions without government approval, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that his custodial interrogation was indeed necessary.

Dr Anil, alias Anil Kumar Sharma, had moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in FIR dated December 25 last year registered at the Safidon City police station in Jind district for cheating and other offences under Sections 312, 315, 318, 420 and 34 of the IPC and the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the Indian Medical Council Act.

Opposing the bail petition before Justice Jaishree Thakur’s Bench, the state counsel had contended that the petitioner along with his co-accused was actively involved in termination of pregnancy in Leelawati Hospital at Safidon without authority.

Justice Thakur asserted it was settled principle that anticipatory bail could not be granted as a matter of rule. It was to be granted only in exceptional cases as it was an extraordinary privilege.

Referring to the prosecution case, Justice Thakur observed the FIR was registered in compliance of an order passed by Jind Civil Surgeon. It was stated that certain hospitals were inspected. In the process, it was found that Leelawati Hospital was not approved for termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act and Dr Anil and Dr Shanti were not eligible for conducting termination of pregnancy.

It was added the petitioner demanded Rs 10,000 for terminating 19-week pregnancy of a woman, who had visited the hospital. She was admitted on December 2, 2019, and proceeded home after abortion the next day. On both the days, the petitioner and Dr Shanti were present in the hospital and the amount was taken by the petitioner on December 3, 2019.

Pointing at the FIR, Justice Thakur observed there were similar allegations levelled by other women. During the inspection, certain slips of the patient were found from the hospital’s chemist shop regarding the use of medicines and injections for abortion. The machine used for the purpose was also taken into possession. There were allegations against the petitioner that patients were sent to his hospital for abortion. In lieu, the petitioner would pay handsome commission.

“There are serious allegations that have been levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner is allegedly involved in the act of doing illegal abortions without any approval from the government. After considering the material and facts of the present case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required by the police for a result oriented investigation,” Justice Thakur concluded.