Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harshlata Parte vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-22442-2017
sh
(HARSHLATA PARTE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
5
ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 18-12-2017
Pr
Shri Vasant Daniel, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A. Singh, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
a Shri Surendra Patel, counsel for the objector.
hy Heard on I.A. No.24496/2017 for taking documents on record filed on ad behalf of the counsel for the objector.
M For the reasons stated in the application, the documents are taken on record and I.A. No.24496/2017 is allowed.
of Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 rt of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Dr. ou Harshlata Parte in Crime No.827/2017 registered by Police Station Dindori, District- Dindori under Sections 376B, 376(2) (N) and 506 read C with Section 34 of the IPC.
h As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a major unmarried ig woman. She worked as staff nurse under co-accused Dr. Mahendra H Parte, husband of the present petitioner, in Government Hospital, Dindori. In May, 2016 co-accused Mahendra Parte established physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marriage. He exploited her physically for a period of about 14 months. As a result, she conceived in February, 2017. When she learnt in May, 2017 that she had conceived, she started pressurizing Dr. Mahendra Parte to marry her; however, he kept dilly-dallying. Meanwhile, Dr. Parte was transferred to Seoni. In August, 2017, he called her to Jabalpur to marry. At Jabalpur, Dr. Parte and present petitioner Harshlata Parte, met her. They brought her to Seoni on the promise of performing her marriage with Dr. Parte and made her stay at Hotel Vrindavan, where her physical conditions deteriorated; whereon, petitioner Harshlata sh Parte administered her two tablets namely Tramadol and Dicyclomine. Thereafter, Dr. Parte refused to marry her and vanished. At Seoni, e ad present petitioner Harshlata Parte started to pressurize her to leave Seoni warning that otherwise she would kill her. After ten days, she Pr aborted. Thereafter, the first information report was lodged on a 24.10.2017.
hy Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the role that has been ad ascribed to the petitioner in the incident is limited to administering tablets, which resulted in miscarriage and threatening the victim to M leave Seoni. It may amounts to offence under Sections 313/315 or 506- of B of IPC; however, the alleged offence of causing miscarriage is said to have taken place in August, 2017 but the FIR was lodged on rt 24.10.2017. It appears highly improbable that the wife of a ou Government Doctor, who herself is a doctor, would entertain a nurse C with whom her husband had illicit relations and would try to cause h miscarriage. Moreover, there is nothing in the FIR to suggest that the ig tablets allegedly given by the petitioner were given to victim without H her consent. Both drugs namely Tramadol and Dicyclomine are mere painkillers and do not induce abortion. There are no charges of any co- operation extended by the petitioner to her husband in physical exploitation of the victim. The petitioner herself is in the sixth month of pregnancy; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the objector have opposed the application for anticipatory bail mainly on the ground that the petitioner not only threatened the victim but also administered drugs to induce abortion; therefore, she is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.
sh However, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned e ad counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Pr Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section a 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Dr. hy Harshlata Parte, is allowed.
ad It is directed that in the event of her arrest, petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of M Rs.40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to the of satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for her appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the rt conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of ou Criminal Procedure.
C Certified Copy as per rules.
h ig H (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 2017.12.19 14:37:11 +05'30'