The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Chandrashekhar Yadav .S, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sr:i D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA 5 ORDER: seeking the court to enrarge the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1r in crime No.147 of 2o2s of Gopiirapuram police Station, Hyclerabad, on bail, the present criminal pr:tition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2s.oz.2o2s, the d.e- facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that a grave incident of cheating, fraud, and criminal conspiracy orchestrated by Dr. Pachipali Namatha and her associates at universal Srushti Fertility centre, in Secunclerabad and visakhapatnerm. After two miscarriages, the couple approached the clinic in August 2024 for IVF. Despite being rnecrically fit, they were persuaded to opt for surrog&cy, u,ith assuran(res that their own gametes would be used and a healthy child delivered after DNA confirmurtion. They paid Rs.30,26,000/- between August 2024 and May 2o2s through bank transfers, cheques, and cash. Gametes were collected in September 2024, and the clinic later claimed successfur embryo implantation and pregnancy. Medical reports were shared selectively, and originals were withheld. In June 2o2s, the clinic informed them of the derivery of the surrogate delivery and handed over a newborn at Lotus Hospitar, " €4'-- 2 SKS, J Crl.P.No. I1575 of 2025 Visakhapatnam, without prior DNA testing- Suspicious, the couple conducted independent DNA tests, which conflrmed the child was not biologically related to them. When confronted, Dr.Namratha initially responded but later blocked communication and fled the premises. The complainant alleges deliberate misrepresentation, misuse or itlegal disposal of gametes, and fabrication of the Surrogacy process, amounting to fraud, breach of trust, and possible trafficking of reproductive material and requested for necessary legal action along with confidentiality of personal details. Based on the above report, the Police have registered a case under Crime No.147 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 61,316,335,336,34O and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS), Sections 38, 39, and 40 of the Surrogacy (Regutation) Act, 2O2L and Sections 81 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Chitdren) Act, 2015 (for short, UJ ActJ.

3. Heard sri chandrashekhar Yadav s, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4. petitioner had. been languishing in jail since OL.O8.2O25 and was falsely implicated in the present case and that the material part of i i I i I I I 3 SKS, J Crl.P.No. 11575 of 2025 the investigation had been completed and that thr: petitioner was the sole caretzrker of her two children, a four-year-old boy and an eleven-year-old girl, the latter of u,hom had been missing for the past week. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested soiely basecj on the confession statement of the co-accused and that Accuse,l No.S had already been granted bail. Therefore, he prayed the court to grant bail to the petitioner b.y allowing this criminal petition. 5- on the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner were grave in nature and that she was also involved in other cases in Maharashtra, including one rerated to child trafficking. He further contended that the petitioner could not clairn parity with Accused No.S and that the investigation was still in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he mav tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it was observed that the petitioner had previously been arrested in 2024 by vikhroli Police Station, Maharashtra, in connection with a child 4 SKS, J Crl.P.No. 11575 of 2O25 ,:i; .i i: 1i':' trafficking case and was remanded to judiciai custody and further the record revealed that the petitioner had collected large sums of money from clients under the guise of surrogacy and had procured newborn babies from vulnerable individuals for Rs.3.5 lakhs for a female baby and Rs.4.5 lakhs for a male baby through her agents and that these babies 'uvere then handed over to the clients of Accused No.1, falsely claiming that the nervborns were biologically theirs, and fake documents were issued to support this claim. It was further noted that the petitioner was a habitual offender and, in conspiracy with other accused persons, had engaged in multiple illegal activities under the pretext of surrogacy. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing stage of investigation, the petitioner could not be granted parity with Accused No.5, who had been granted regular bail. Therefore, this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. sd/- A.H. S. GOWRI SHANKAR ANT REG ISTRAR I'TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER erabad. To,

1. The X Additional Chief MetroPolitan Magistrate 2. 3. Two CCs to the P ublic Posecutor The Station House Officer, GopalaPu ram Police Statio n, HYderabad Hyderabad .tourl igh Court for the State of Telangana ,H rashekhar Yadav 'S' Advocate IOPUC] Sri Chand

4. One CC to 5. Two CD CoPies VH/kam Y,r- HIGH COURT DATED i 2410912025 ( ( t .{riE s T4 06 tlou M ICHEo t ) z ORDER CRLP.No.11575 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q "ot('^^ Scr