BAIL APPLN./2354/2016 of MAMTA Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 2354/2016

MAMTA

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr. Advocate withMr. Mukesh Birla and Mr. AnilBabbar, Advs.Mr. Mukesh Birla and Mr. AnilBabbar, Advs.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

..... Respondent

Through

:Dr. M.P. Singh, APP with SI RajKumar, P.S. Neb Sarai

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R%18.11.2016

Crl.M.A. No. 17925/2016 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. No. 2354/2016

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the FIR No. 301/2016 underSections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Neb Sarai on thecomplaint of Ms. Dimple.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitionersubmits that Section 313 IPC has been included in the FIR subsequently. Hesubmits that petitioner is not related to the husband of the complainant. As

per the allegations in the FIR, husband of the complainant had disclosed thecomplainant that petitioner was his wife.As per the complainant, herhusband compelled her to talk to petitioner and during the conversationpetitioner disclosed that she had forced the complainant’s husband and herin-laws for abortion by administering certain medicines to her during thepregnancy, resulting in miscarriage. Learned Senior Counsel submits thatonly allegation against the petitioner is under Section 313 IPC for assistingthe complainant’s husband and her in-laws in providing medicines to them,which they gave to the complainant.He further submits that no medicalrecord of any hospital was produced regarding the termination of pregnancy.During the investigation, opinion of Dr. Juhi Bharti of AIIMS hospital wastaken and as per the doctor’s opinion, cause of abortion was “incompetentOS”.He has further contended that as per the medical dictionary,“incompetent OS” means uterine cervix that cannot maintain diametersufficient enough to support the increasing weight of fetus. This conditionusually results in early second trimester abortion. He further submits thatthe husband and in-laws of the complainant have already been grantedregular bail.

Learned APP submits that the husband of complainant, in his

disclosure statement, has stated that medicines were provided by thepetitioner. He submits that custodial interrogation of petitioner is requiredto find out the composition of medicine, which petitioner had provided tothe complainant’s husband. He further submits that allegations are seriousin nature therefore petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail.However, report of the AIIMS hospital has not been disputed, wherein thedoctor has opined, thus, “After complete history taking and investigation,the way of presentation indicates incompetent OS.”

Keeping in mind the totality of above facts and circumstances, it isordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on anticipatory bailsubject to her furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/-(RupeesTwenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to thesatisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO concerned.Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

NOVEMBER 18, 2016rb

A.K. PATHAK, J.