JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. They have no complain with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. Considering the nature of the prayer made, I am disposing the case, to which the parties have no objection.

2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authority to take appropriate steps to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner no. 2 who is the daughter of petitioner no. 1.

3. The petitioners are not pressing the prayer no. B and C of the prayer portion.

4. This writ petition was filed by the Raju Ravidas seeking termination of pregnancy of his daughter. On the last date, counsel for the petitioner verbally prayed to implead his daughter, the victim, also as petitioner no. 2 in the cause title. A vakalatnama has also been filed by the daughter of Raju Ravidas. Though no formal petition has been filed to implead her as a party petitioner in this case, yet seeing the nature of the case I allow the verbal prayer and add the daughter of petitioner no.1, as petitioner no.2 in this writ petition. The name of the Petitioner no 2 is withheld.

5. The daughter of Raju Ravidas, whose name has been withheld will be mentioned as petitioner no. 2 in this order.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 2 is a minor girl aged about 15 years. It is alleged that on false pretext of marriage, the girl who is petitioner no. 2 was forced and fraudulently induced to have sexual relationship with the accused/person, for which an FIR has been registered being Gomiya P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020 under Section 376 (3) of IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act. It is alleged that because of sexual assault, petitioner no. 2 became pregnant and she is carrying pregnancy of 20 weeks. It is submitted that this pregnancy is a grave injury to the mental health of the petitioner no. 2, thus the same needs to be terminated. Praying to terminate the pregnancy, this petition has been filed u/s 226 of the Constitution.

7. On the last date i.e. on 25.06.2020 this Court directed the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro to constitute a Medical Board and submit a report to this Court. Complying the said direction of this Court, a Medical Board was constituted of 6 competent doctors.

8. After the examination of the victim girl, the doctors opined that as per the radiological examination, the age of the girl seems to be more than 18 years on the date of examination. It has further been opined that the period of gestation is 33 weeks 5 days. Status of the girl is normal except the fact that she is anemic and her hemoglobin percentage is 8 gm/dl as on 26.06.2020. It has further been opined that considering the condition, there is risk involved in termination of pregnancy. The report further suggests that there is no chance of injury to the health of fetus in continuation of pregnancy, if anemia is corrected. It has also been observed that there is no gross congenital anomaly of the fetus which is apparent from USG report. It has further been mentioned that for the better health of the patient she may attain the term of pregnancy by managing anemia, followed by induction and delivery of the baby.

9. Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) provides that subject to Section 4 of the Act, a pregnancy may be terminated by registered medical practitioner where the length of pregnancy does not exceed 12 weeks. Further it provides that when the length of pregnancy exceeds 12 week but does not exceed 20 weeks, and not less than 2 registered medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that the continuation of pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical and mental health or there is a substantial risk that if the child will born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, may terminate the pregnan