The High Court · 2025

TheStateofTelangana,throughS.Ho.,suryapetllTownPoliceStation,Rep- by its Public Prosedutor, High Court, Hyderabad' ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT PetitionunderSection4S0and4S3ofBNSSprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High corrt may be pleased to enlarge the petitionels herein on bail in connection wiitr Cr.ruo.tgz ot 2025 on the file of Suryapet ll Town Police Station, Suryapet Malkajgiri District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DONTIREDDY SRINIVASA REDDY, AdVOCAtE fOT thc PCtItiONET ANd thE SRI SYEDYASARMAMooN,ADDITIoNALPUBLICPRoSECUToRonbehalfofthe Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINA L PETITION Ne.7371 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal perition is filed under Sections 4g0 and 4g3 of Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ,BNSS,) seeking bail to the petitioner/accused No.5 in Crime No.197 of 2025 on the file of the p.S.Suryapet II Town, Suryapet, registered for the offences punishable undcr Sections 105 and 90 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, ZO23 (BNS), Secrions 5(2) and 5(3) of the Medical Termination of pregnancy Act, l9j1(tbr short ,MTp Act') and Section 23(lX3) of the pre_Conception and pre_Natal Diagnostic 1'echniques Act, 1994 (tbr short .pCpNDT Act,). 2' The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.05.2025, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that the deceased had five month pregnancy, her husband sought illegal sex determination with the assistance of accused No.l and on 17.5.2025, an ultrasound test was done which revealed a female fetus. He arranged for an abortion through petitioner, an RMp from Tekumarla, for Rs.3g,000/_ at an unregistered private hospital in Suryapet. The deceased was ..\ admitted around 7:00 pM on i I I I I I I I i i i I I I I i i : I 2 11 .05.2025 and began experiencing heavy bleeding during the procedure. She was shifted to a private hospital in Khammam at 11:30 PM, where she was declared dead at 1:00 AM on

18.05.2025. Basing on the same, present crime was registered.

3. Heard Mr.D.Srinivas Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed the offence. He vehemently contended that the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the complaint, nor he was originally arrayed as an accused However, based on the confession statement given by another accused, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and arrayed as accused No.5. He further submitted that the complainant in her complaint, only made allegation that the Doctor conducted abortion remains unknown and there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the MTP Act and Section 23(1)(3) of the PCPNDT Act. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested ol 29.05 .2025 and since then he is in judicial custody and he is not having any other criminar antecedents. He further submitted that the petitioner shall abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Cour1, and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra,leamed Additional public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner, along with the other accused, committed grave offences by performing an abortion to the deceased without possessing any valid medical qualification. As a result of this illegal and negligent act, the deceased died on 1g.05.2025. Accused Nos.1 to 4 r,r,ere absconding and the investigation is under progress and if the petitioner is granted bait at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and alter perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the complainant, who is none other than the i l I 1i t: 4 District Medical and Health Officer, Suryapet, lodged a complaint on23.05.2025, wherein she specifically stated as follows "A Five-month pregnant weman, Ms. Bayya Anusha, Wo.Mr-Bayya Nagesh, a resident of Raghavapuram village, Mothey Mandal was tragically passed away due to complications arising from an illegal abortion procedure carried out at an unregistered private hospital in Suryapet. The deceased was G3P2L2A0, with two prior lower segment cesarean sections (LSCS). In March 2025, she experienced vaginal bleeding for 7 days and consulted a specialist at Padmavathi Hospital, Khammam, where her pregnancy was confirmed via ultrasound, and medications were prescribed. She experienced similar symptoms in April 2025 and sought medical attention at Sravanthi Hospital Suryapet, where she was advised bed rest. The husband, Mr. Bayya Nagesh, admitted that they sought illegat sex determination and were assisted by a relative, Mr.Uppula Sandeep alias Chanti, R/o.Sarvaram Village. An ultrasound was allegcdly performed on 17.05.2025 in Nakekal, which revealed the fetus to be female. Subsequently, an arrangement was made with Mr.Uppula Sandeep and an RMP fiom Tekumatla to conduct an abortion for a payment of Rs.38,0001 at a private, unregistered hospital in Suryapet, operated by an unknown doctor. The patient was admitted to the hospital (beside Baby Moon High School, near Ramalingeswara Theatre, Suryapet) at around 7:00 PM on 17 .05.2025. During the abortion process, she experienced heavy bleeding at around 9:00 PM and was shifted to a private hospital in Khammam at approximately I 1:30 PM, where she was declared dead at 1:00 AM on 18.05.2025. The body was handed over to the family for final rites."

7. The record further discloses that during the course of investigation, the investigation officer came to know that the r: -' *.iFE t t/ 5 petitioner, who is RMP Doctor along with other accused conducted abortion to the deceased and the deceased died on 1g.05.2025. Even according to the leamed Additional public prosecutor, the investigation is under progress.

8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.5.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, pending if any. shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR l SECTION OFFICER 'L The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet, Suryapet District 2. The Station House Officer, Suryapet ll TN Police Station, Suryapet, Suryapet District 3 One CC to SRI DONTIREDDY SRINIVASA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies W. VM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 25106t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7371 ot 2025 I I i I I I :' 2 5 AUE 206 /.< l:] t-) * DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION $