(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed u/S 439 Cr.PC (filed u/S 483 BNNS) praying to grant the regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Session Case No.5061/2024 (arising out of Crime No.102/2024 dated 06.05.2024 of Pandavapura Police Station) for the offence p/u/S 312, 313, 315, 316, 34 of IPC, 1860 Section 19 of Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act 2007 and Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 pending on the file of the Iii Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Mandya sitting at Srirangapatna.)

Oral Order

1. The petitioner-accused No.12 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC in Crime No.102/2024 of Pandavapura Police Station, pending in SC No.5061/2024 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapatna), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 312, 313, 315, 316 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant- Dr. Bettaswami.

2. Heard Manjunath B R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

          "Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"

          My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

4. The petitioner being accused No.12 is seeking grant of bail. She was apprehended on 12.05.2024 and since then, she is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 5. During investigation, several others were apprehended and it is stated that as of now, there are in all 12 accused. The allegation made against the present petitioner is that accused No.4 was having frequent telephone conversations with the present petitioner and it is this petitioner who conducted illegal medical termination of pregnancy to the wife of accused No.11.

5. Learned HCGP for the respondent - State submits that in Pandavapura Police Station, two similar cases were registered and in Melukote, Udayagiri, Baiyappanahalli Police Stations, one such cases each were registered. It is also stated that the case registered in Udayagiri and Baiyappanahalli Police Station were handed over to COD for further investigation and the investigation in the present case was also be handed over to COD and the investigation is completed.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking grant of bail by filing Crl.P.5436/2024. The same came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2024, since the investigation was not completed and prima facie it was found that the present petitioner had conducted illegal MTP to the wife of accused No.11 and the allegations made against the present petitioner were very serious in nature.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. He also drew the attention of the Court to column No.17 of the charge sheet, where there is specific allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 4 as they are responsible for causing illegal MTP to the victim - CW.2 i.e., the wife of accused No.11. Ofcourse, column No.17 of the charge sheet refers to the overt act committed by the present petitioner that she assisted accused No.1 to cause abortion and few medicines were given by the petitioner to accused No.1 and few such medicines were seized from the house of the petitioner, which are used for causing abortion or MTP.

9. My attention was also drawn to the statement of the victim -CW.2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate, to contend that even the victim never refers to the name of the present petitioner, as she caused abortion or MTP illegally.

10. Learned HCGP confirms that the victim - CW.2 has not referred the name of the present petitioner, as she conducted illegal MTP. However, the same needs to be considered when CW.2 deposes before the Trial Court by identifying the petitioner.

11. When the investigation is already completed making specific overt act against each of the accused in column No.17 of the charge sheet and when CW.2 never referred the name of the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, and as the other accused with similar allegations have been already enlarged on bail, the petitioner is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is stated that the petitioner was apprehended on 12.05.2024 and since then she is in judicial custody. As per the charge sheet, as many as 60 witnesses are cited and examination of these witnesses will take sufficiently long period of time. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

12. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          The petition is allowed.

          The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.102/2024 of Pandavapura Police Station pending in SC No.5061/2024 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapatna), on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

          a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

          b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

          c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

          If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

          On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.