Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1333 (PNJ)

Manju Bansal v. State of Haryana

2003-09-23

NIRMAL SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This is a petition under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 378 dated 29.8.2002 under Sections 313, 338, 506 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Hodal, District Faridabad. The case of the prosecution is that complainant Lata was having pregnancy of 2-1/2 months. On 16.7.2002 she along with her mother Gianwati went to Bansal Medicare Centre to consult about her ailment of weakness. The doctor prescribed some medicines for her ailment and was directed to come after 20 days for check up. On 5.8.2002 she again went to Bansal Medicare Centre along with her brothers wife Shakuntala. The complainant was subjected to ultra sound and she was advised to clean the womb. It is the case of the complainant that she refused but she was taken in a room forcibly by Rajesh, sister of her husband who was employed as Nurse in that hospital. She was given injection and glucose on her left hand. She was administered anesthesia. Her womb was cleaned. She remained under the influence of anesthesia. When she became conscious, her left hand was swollen to a great extent. She enquired from Rajesh what was happened then Rajesh replied that it would be alright. 2. The doctor told the complainant that there is nothing abnormal to her hand and it will be all right during night. The hand of the complainant remained inactive and her fingers turned black. The complainant again went to the Nursing home of the petitioners. The petitioner gave two/three injections and also gave ointment and sent (her) back. The complainant developed severe pain. She was advised by the petitioners to be taken to Delhi. The doctor at Delhi advised to chop off the hand. The complainant was taken to Escorts Research Centre, Faridabad. There also same advise was given. Ultimately her hand was chopped off in Gurunanak Hospital, Palwal. The further case of the complainant is that the doctor has not given the papers of the history sheet of his disease and there was exchange of hot words between the doctor and the family members of the complainant. Now the petitioners are apprehending that they may not be arrested in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no motive to do the abortion forcibly. Now the petitioners are apprehending that they may not be arrested in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no motive to do the abortion forcibly. He submitted that the complainant came in the nursing home and she was subjected to ultra sound. As per the report of the ultra sound, it was found by petitioner No. 1 that there was a pregnancy of six weeks with no cardiac activity of the foetus and the complainant was advised to come after one week. The complainant did not visit as per the advise and instead of that the complainant came to the Nursing Home of the petitioners on 5.8.2002. The complainant was again subjected to ultra sound. It was found that there was no cardiac activity of the foetus i.e. the foetus was dead and in order to save the life of the complainant DNC was done in good faith so that the poisoning in the body would not spread and may not prove fatal to the life of the complainant. 4. Shri K.S. Chauhan, DAG, Haryana assisted by Shri R.M. Singh, Advocate submitted that sister of the husband of the complainant was employed as Nurse in Bansal Medicare Centre and at her instance DNC was done forcibly. He contended that the petitioners have committed criminal act. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. From the complaint itself, it reveals that the complainant was subjected to ultra sound two times. Both the times, it was found that foetus was dead. In the complaint itself, it has not been mentioned that there was some motive on the part of the petitioners or sister of the husband of the complainant. The petitioners have done DNC upon the complainant in order to save her life. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. 7. Taking into consideration the report, at this stage, there is no reasonable ground to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of the offence for which the case has been committed. So, considering all the material aspects of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. 7. Taking into consideration the report, at this stage, there is no reasonable ground to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of the offence for which the case has been committed. So, considering all the material aspects of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. So, the interim bail granted to the petitioners is confirmed on the terms and conditions that the petitioners will not tamper with the evidence and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 8. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of my opinion on the merits of the case. Petition allowed.