M.M. Kumar, J.@mdashThis petition filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks grant of bail in case FIR No.30 dated 24.4.2003 registered in PS Amloh U/ss 312 and 313 IPC and Sections 4 and 5(2) of the M.T.P. Act, 1971 (for brevity the Act). The allegations made in the FIR discloses the commissions of an offence under Sections 4 and 5(2) of the Act read with Sections 312 and 313 IPC. It has been alleged that the petitioners have been indulging in illegal activity of aborting the child of one Lakhbir Kaur wife of Kuldip Singh resident of village Mallowal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. At the time of raid, petitioner No. 1 was found conducting abortion with the assistance of petitioner No.2. It is also alleged that petitioners are quacks and have no formal training for practising surgery like abortion. The petitioner moved an application before the Id. Addl. Sessions Judge which has been dismissed on 13.5.2003 by holding that the petitioners were not authorised to terminate pregnancy nor the premises were licensed in terms of Section 4 of the Act. According to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the basic features of Section 4 of the Act and S. 312 IPC are prima facie made out. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court.
2. Shri Rishi Kaushal, learned counsel has argued that the petitioners are in custody since 24.4.2003 and the offences under Sections 4 and 5(2) of the Act are bailable. Learned counsel has further pointed out that no offence is made out u/s 312 or 313 IPC. Learned counsel has also made reference to the statement of Lakhbir Kaur wherein she had stated that she was never pregnant nor she had gone to Malkiat Kaur for the purpose of abortion. It has further been pointed out that Lakhbir Kaur and her husband had been enlarged on bail and copies of their bail orders are Annexure P.2 and P.3.
3. Shri G.S. Gill, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General has controverted the argument of the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners are quacks and have been caught red-handed while aborting the child of Lakhbir Kaur. Learned counsel admitted that although foetus has not been recovered but in such like cases, learned State counsel has maintained that recovery of foetus is rare. He has further submitted that there is no parity in the allegations levelled against the petitioner, Lakhbir Kaur and Kuldip Singh.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offences committed, severity of the punishment and the likelihood of protracted trial, I have reached the conclusion that the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail pending trial. They have already the conclusion that the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail pending trial. They have already undergone more than five months as under trial. The trial Court shall imposed stringent conditions to ensure that the petitioner are available during trial. The petition stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to accept the bail bonds of the petitioners to its satisfaction.
