IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.04.2026 Pawan Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section

483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No. 27 dated 19.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 318(4) and 61 of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ [Sections 238(c) and 336(3) of BNS added later on], Section(s) 3, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 18, 23 and 29 of ‘the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994’ and Section 34 of ‘the National Medical Commission Act, 2019’, Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Nodal Officer’ (Civil Surgeon, Narnaul) who had reported that from a reliable source he received a tip-off that a racket was working in the area of District Narnaul, which was involved in the illegal activities of sex determination tests at Kotputli (Rajasthan). According to above-mentioned complaint in order to fix the role of the members of the gang, a decoy customer was deputed to contact the gang members who settled a deal for determination of sex. As per complainant when it was found that the above said persons were involved in the above-mentioned illegal activities, they were nabbed and the FIR lodged.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that the petitioner was present with his wife for the sex determination test of foetus, and thus, he committed the abovementioned offence. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the above-mentioned allegation is false, and that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had ever visited the hospital at Behror.

7. The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State counsel, in order to fix the responsibility of the persons involved in the illegal activities with regard to sex determination of the foetus, a drive was conducted by the officials of the Health Department and ample evidence was collected by deputing a decoy customer, who revealed that the gang was operating and the petitioner had finalized the deal for proving the services of the above-mentioned gang for the sex determination test.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three months;

ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

iii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence, for which the petitioner is being prosecuted, is imprisonment up to seven years;

iv) that there is a serious question with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the above mentioned offence, as the allegations are with regard to sex determination test within the State of Rajasthan but the FIR has been lodged in the State of Haryana;

v) that there is a question mark as to whether the FIR in the instant case could have been lodged, as under PNDT Act the cognizance can be taken on a complaint only;

vi) that the investigation is already complete, and therefore, no