JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner is a 13-year old girl, represented by the Officer-in-Charge/Person-in-Charge, Snehachhaya Child Care Institution. The petitioner is a minor girl and a student of Class-VI, aged about 13 years. She is a survivor of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation, allegedly by a person around 34 years old.

2. The petitioner’s parents are migrant labourers who used to stay at Assam for earning livelihood and visit their native place once or twice a year. The petitioner, thus, had to stay alone at home with her younger sister. Needless to say, the petitioner comes from an extremely marginalized section of society, deprived of minimum financial means, care and protection. Taking advantage of the situation, a next-door neighbour perpetrated the criminal act as indicated above on repeated occasions on the petitioner. She could not disclose anything to anyone due to fear of public stigma and retribution by the assailant.

3. Subsequently, symptoms of pregnancy became visible and the petitioner was taken to the Digha State General Hospital on August 12, 2023. Thereafter, pursuant to a complaint lodged by the Superintendent, Digha SG Hospital, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered, inter alia under Section 3 76(2)(n) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

4. The survivor/petitioner was taken into safe custody under the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Purba Medinipur and was produced before the Medical Officer, Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital on August 13, 2023, where different tests were conducted on her, confirming the pregnancy of the petitioner. From a report from the diagnostic centre concerned, it transpires that as on August 18, 2023, the foetus was about 24 weeks and 6 days old. Thus, as of today, the foetus is almost 26 weeks old.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner places reliance on Section 3 (2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (in short, “the MTP Act”) as well as the Explanation thereto and Section 5 (1) of the said Act as well.

6. Learned senior counsel also places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court and another judgment of this Court in support of his contention that in certain circumstances, keeping in view the trauma and anxiety of the survivor of offences such as the present one and keeping in view the surrounding circumstances, the Court can pass orders directing the medical termination of pregnancy even at an advanced stage after the statutory period of 24 weeks.

7. The State submits a report corroborating the apprehensions of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State also submits that due action under the criminal jurisprudence has already been taken against the perpetrator of the offence.

8. Since the matter is not adversarial, no affidavits are directed.

9. The judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the petitioner is an unreported one dated August 21 , 2023 in the matter of XYZ Vs. The State of Gujarat and others.

10. In the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that the whole object of preferring a writ petition is to exercise the extraordinary discretion of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional power which is vested with the constitutional courts and discretion has to be exercised judiciously and having regard to the facts of the case, taking into consideration the relevant facts while leaving out irrele