The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Criminal Petition and upon.hearing the arguments of Sri KHAMMAMPATI SREENIVAS, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER Criminal Petition No'9540 of 2025 ' Order, This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/ accused No. 4, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with Crime No. 197 of 2025 on thei file of Suryapet II Town Police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 90 of BNS and Section 5(2),5(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Sections 23(L)(3) of Pre-C-oncePtion & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, L994'

2. The case of the prosecution is that the District Medical & Heafuh Officer, Suqz:apet District, lodged a rePoft before the Police stating that they received rePort of criminal abortion performed in unnamed and unregistered facility located near Ramalingeswara theatre, Suqz:apet District, and that has come to Iight based on a preliminary report by, the in-charge Depury DM6*IO. A pregnant 2 women passed away due to complications arising from illegal abortion procedure carried out at an unregistered private hospital in Su{xapet. The deceased was with rwo prior lower segment cesarean sections. In March 2025, she experienced vaginal bleeding f.or 7 dr1a and consulted a specialsit at Padmavathi Hospital, Kharrullam, where her pregnancy was confirmed via uhrxound, and medications were prescribed. She experienced similar symPtonls in April 2025 and sought medical aftention at Sravanthi Hospital, Suryapeq where she was advised bed rest. The husband of victim admined that they sought illegal sex determinadon and wereassisrcd by relative ^ Mr.Uppula Sandeep alias Chanti. An ultrasound was allegedly performed on 17 .05.2025 in Nakrekal, which revealed the fetus to be female. Subsequently, art attangement was made with Mr.Uppula Sandeep and an RMP from Tekumatla to conduct aL abortion for a payment of Rs.38,000/- at a private, unregistered hospital in Suqrapet, oPefttted by an unknown doctor. The patient was admtted to the hospital at around 7:00 tt. / 1 7 . .1.. PM. During the abortion process, she experienced heavy bleeding at around 9:00 PM and was shifted ro a private hospital in Khammarrl where she was declared dead. The statements were obtained from the family members and the family stated that victim has rwo daughten aged about 7 and 5. She and her husband left home on 17.05.2025 for a routine check-up. Th.y claimed no knowledge of her pregnancy and they have also came to know that the identity of the doctor involved remains unknown and the owner of the building has stated that he made rental agreemenr with tr&.Maddela Nanimha, for a period of four Fars. The person who has conducted medical termination of pregn ancy are unqualified and they know that illegal abortion may cause the death of the patient, whereas they have conducted without any skillful knowledge. fu such requested the Police for the necessary action again-st Uppula Sandeep, Bayya Nagesh and unqualified doctor or percon who has conducted MIP and other pe^ons involved in this illegal abortion. Basing on the same, the police ( I ,4 registered a case and issued FI& vide Gime No.19Z of 2025, the petitioners are arlaqd as accused Nos.4 and 5. According to the remand report of the investigating officer, the role of accused Nos.4 and 5 are that accused No.4 is the resident of Khammarn, he conducted abonion to the deceased along with accused Nos.5, 7 andJCL and accused No.5 is private medical practitioner, he is resident of ar,avpally village and mandal and also stated that on the date of incident accused Nos.4 and 5 went to that hospital and all together were performed abortion of deceased. Later, they came out and informed she is suffering with heavy bleeding and they should immediately take her to Khammam hospital. 3. Flearcd Mr.K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the petitioner/acctsed No.4 and Mr. Sfd Yasar Mamoon, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor aPPearing for the respondent- State.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submined that the petitioner has not commiued any offence and he was falsely / / :5 implicated in the presenr crime and FIR was registered against un}nown doctors and the name of the pedtioner is nor mentioned. Even according to the remand repoft, the role of t.. the petitioner is that he also anended the abortion, except that allegation, rhere are no other allegations asainsl the petitioner. Even according to the complaint, previously also the deceased consulted the doctors wirh same symproms and with same complications. Therefore, there is no evidence on record ro show that due to aborcion only she died and he is a registered medical practioner and he is no v/ay connected with the offence and requested the court ro granr anticipatory bail. 5. Per conrra, learned Additional public prosecuror I t submined that the alleged offences were nor only heinous offence and it is inhuman offence and rhere are clear allegations against the petitioner that he arso participated in the said abortion and the investigation is nor )er completed. The petitioner along with other accused are absconding and I I o { custodian interrogation is necessary and thus requested the Cout to dismiss the petition.

6. C-onsidering the submissions made by the both rhe parties and material available on record, the allegations against this petitioner is that he along with other accused conducted illegal abonion. It is noteworthythat the petitioner is a medical practioner. FIence, as there are severe allegations against this petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU EPUTY REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY" N OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet 2. The S.H.O., P.S. SuryaPet, ll Town 3. One CC to SRl. KHAMMAMPATI SREENTVAS Advocate [oPUC] 4. one cc to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, HYD [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies I 1 HIGH COURT DATED i18l0&l2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9540 of 2025 Q o,F. THE S 74 Q 2t ttfl1[ Gt t * ''^, v,'.r611 rt z DTSMISSING THE CRLP \t