Tripura HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail to Medical Practitioner for Allegedly Performing Unauthorised Pregnancy Termination

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

The Hon’ble Justice Talapatra of the Tripura High Court, in the case of Dr Bishnu Chandra Dey v. the State of Tripura decided on whether an anticipatory bail to be given to medical practitioner allegedly performing pregnancy termination without the appropriate license.

Brief Facts of the Case

The officer-in-charge of RK Pur Police station on the information by the District Magistrate and Collector, Gomati Tripura, carried out a visit to the petitioner’s chamber for inspection. It was found that women were waiting for pregnancy termination. The informant who brought this chamber’s functioning to light has inquired with one of the patients of the petitioner that she had come for such termination to the doctor and while the informant inquired with the doctor about his credibility, he has stated clearly that he did not a government license. Further, an inquiry was made by the Chief Medical Officer, Gomati Tripura, and based on the same, the case was registered under Sec. 315 IPC and Sec. 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Arguments Made by the Parties

The petitioner argued that allegations were concocted, since, he did not carry on any pregnancy termination in his chamber. Further, the petitioner is a registered medical practitioner and has retired from Tripura Health Service. It was also submitted that the District Collector and Magistrate lack the authority to inspect the petitioner’s chambers and hence, such inspection is unlawful which cannot form the basis of any prosecution. There is no evidence to prove that any illegal termination of pregnancy was conducted in the chambers. The counsel for petitioners referred to the decision of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others and pointed out that if the facts of the particular case suggest that the accused has joined the investigation and is in full cooperation with the process, custodial interrogation should be avoided.

The learned Additional PP produced the case diary, investigation records which provide compelling evidence to prove that the petitioner was carrying out illegal pregnancy termination in complete disregard of Sec. 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy act 1971, while specifically pointing out to the observation made by the medical officer who visited the chamber, the attendant and a patient who has stated that her pregnancy has been terminated by the petitioner. These materials are substantial enough to prove the allegations against the petitioner.

Further, the counsel pointed out that the inquiry committee that was constituted to investigate the matter faced complete disregard and no cooperation from the petitioner which shows the absence of bona fide.

Court’s Decision

The Court after having verified the records and materials submitted by the prosecution concluded that the facts of the present scenario are not such that the discretion of the Court under Sec. 438 CrPC has to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner may apply for an ordinary bail from the Court of Magistrate as per the due process; however, the conduct of the petitioner throughout preliminary inquiry reflects a character that does not inflict confidence in respect to cooperation with the investigation. Additionally, the nature of the offence, abortion in defiance of due process, is heinous. Therefore, the anticipatory bail petition was rejected.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -