High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/31421/2016dismissed

Om Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2016-09-15Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-31421 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 15, 2016 Om Kumar

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikramjit Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.298 dated 11.06.2016 under Sections 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 23 Rules 3(3), 4, 9, 10, 18 (i) to (xi) of Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Shahbad, District Kurukshetra.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been Vineet Gulati 2016.09.19 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-31421 of 2016 -2registered on the basis of information that Satbir and Sanjeev are running a clinic at village Kaserla Khurd and are involved in Pre-Natal Determination. Decoy patients were arranged. In a house, a person was already present with Ultrasound machine and ultrasound of decoy Darshana Rani and one another was conducted by said person and it was informed to Darshana Rani that there is a male child in her womb and a female child in the womb of other lady. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he conducted the ultrasound.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

September 15, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.09.19 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh