THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11056 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.197 of 2025 of Suryapet II Town Police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 105 and 90 of BNS, Section 5(2) and 5(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Section 23(1)(3) of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 23.05.2025, the District Medical and Health Officer, Suryapet District lodged a report with the police regarding the death of a five-month pregnant woman following an illegal abortion at an unregistered hospital. The husband of the petitioner allegedly sought sex determination, discovered the fetus was female, and paid Rs.38,000/- to Uppula Sandeep and a Rural Medical Officer from Tekumarla to perform the abortion. During the procedure, the woman suffered severe bleeding, was shifted to a hospital in Khammam, and later declared dead. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case vide Crime No.197/2025 for the abovementioned offences.

3. Heard Sri Bharadwaj Reddy Mothe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and no way concerned with the alleged offences and that as per the contents of the complaint, there is no allegation or whisper about the petitioner in the alleged commission of offences and the complaint reveals that an arrangement was made with Mr. Uppala Sandeep and RMP from Tekumatla to conduct an abortion for a payment of Rs.38,000/- and it is relevant to mention that the petitioner is an RMP and his clinic is at Kusumanchi and further the so- called operation is conducted by an unknown doctor. He further submitted that the petitioner is a visiting doctor of that hospital and on that date he went to the hospital and he has not participated in the said procedure. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the petitioner, along with Thotla Ganesh and Chougoni Ganesh, jointly performed an abortion on the deceased and during the procedure, the deceased had suffered excessive bleeding, and despite the administration of an injection, the bleeding had not subsided and she was declared dead. In view of the gravity of the allegations, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of a serious nature, indicating his involvement in the procedure. The remand case diary further reflects that the petitioner participated in conducting the abortion along with the other accused. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date: 18.09.2025 SS