JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Dr. Ashok Adlakha and Dr. Beena Adlakha seek pre-arrest bail in complaint case No. 113 dated 25.7.2011 titled District Appropriate Authority (Senior Medical Officer), Pathankot Vs. Dr. Ashok Adlakha and others in which, the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot vide orders dated 25.7.2011 for an offence punishable under sections 23 and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, “the PC & PNDT Act”) and section 312 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR was lodged in this very matter bearing No. 57 dated 19.6.2011 at Police Station, Division No.1, Pathankot, in which the police conducted enquiry and as per the report of the police (Annexure P6), it was found that at the relevant time neither Dr. Ashok Adlakha nor Dr. Beena Adlakha was present at the hospital and that they did not attend to Meera. According to learned senior counsel, in the case enquiry report it has been found that the doctors had gone to attend the meeting and Meera had not been attended to by any one of them . According to him, the police after due investigation presented a challan against Meera, her husband and midwife Neelam Devi, working in the hospital of the petitioners. He has submitted that thereafter, the Senior Medical Officer, Pathankot has filed the present complaint and in the said complaint, the petitioners have been summoned. He has further submitted that the foetus carried by Meera was 8-10 weeks old and sex of foetus cannot be determined at this stage of pregnancy. According to him, the petitioners are old persons. He has further submitted that the case brought against them is by way of a complaint and that they would stand trial and would suffer punishment, if they are found guilty. He has further submitted that the petitioners under the directions of this court have already appeared before learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot and have been admitted to interim bail. 3. Learned State counsel has admitted that the petitioners have appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot and have been admitted to interim bail. She could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 4. 3. Learned State counsel has admitted that the petitioners have appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot and have been admitted to interim bail. She could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 4. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were found innocent during enquiry of the police, the case now against the petitioners is by way of a complaint where the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, the petitioners are of advanced age, they have already appeared before learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot and have been admitted to interim bail, I find the petitioners to be entitled to bail. Hence, the petition is allowed and the order dated 26.4.2012 passed by this court granting interim bail to the petitioners is made absolute. ---------0.B.S.0------------