Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ikhlas Khan vs State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2025
CRM-M--48303-2025 -11-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
308 CRM-M-48303-2025
Date of Decision: 20.11.2025
Ikhlas Khan
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.
Present: Mr. S.S. Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No. 1133 dated 17.6.20 .2025, registered against him under Sections 6(B), 4(3), 23, 25, 27 of Pre Pre-natal natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, Rule 9 of PCPNDT PNDT and Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, at Police Station City Nuh, Nuh has filed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-
hereinbelow:
On 16.6.2025, the police patrolling team on receiving an information from MHC, Police Station City, Nuh that a medical team has conducted raid on Suraj Ultrasound Centre Centre, they headed for the disclosed losed site, where they met Dr. Aashish Singla, Deputy Civil Surgeon, PC PNDT, Nuh who submitted a written complaint alleging therein that they had been 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 ::: CRM-M--48303-2025 -22- receiving secret information for past some tim timee that some agents/middlemen have been engaged in unlawful act of sex determination of foetus of pregnant women of Rohtak and Rewari in Nuh and surrounding areas. A raiding team was conducted by Appropriate Authority and Rs.70,000/ Rs.70,000/- was arranged from PNDT PND Fund.. The notes were duly signed by all team members of Rohtak and Rewari. Through secret informer, an agent, namely Ikhlas (present petitioner) was contacted who demanded Rs.70,000/ Rs.70,000/- for sex determination. A pregnant lady consented to be a decoy patient.
ent. The demanded amount of Rs.70,000/-
Rs.70,000/ was handed over to the decoy patient patient.. She S met another tout Ashik Ali near Bus Stand, Nuh Nuh, and from where she was taken to Suraj Ultrasound Centre, Nuh on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR27-M-8455.
HR27 8455. Decoy ppatient paid Rs.70,000/- to Ashik Ali, who took her into ultrasound room room, where Dr. Rajveer conducted antenatal ultrasound. Ashik Ali told the decoy patient that he will tell the sex of the foetus f in some time. When the team arrived, he was seen roaming outside utside the ultrasound room.
room Onn seeing the them,, he tried to flee away from the spot,, but was caught. From his possession, Rs.69,000/- were recovered. On O matching numbers of currency notes, the same were found to be correct. On the basis of said complaint, a formal case vide FIR No. 133 dated 17.6.2025, was registered against him under Sections 6(B), 4(3), 23, 25, 27 of PCPNDT PNDT Act, Rule 9 of PCPNDT PC and Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, at Police Station City Nuh.
Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The he same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh,, vide order dated 30.7.2025.
.7.2025. Aggrieved of which, present petition has been filed for grant of bail.
2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 ::: CRM-M--48303-2025 -33-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner who has no concern with Suraj Ultrasound Centre, where the raid was conducted on the day in question by a team headed by Deputy Civil Surgeon, PC PNDT, Nuh.
Nuh He has been falsely implicated licated in the present case. The fact that his name cropped up in the disclosure statement of decoy patient and co-
co accused Ashik Ali, who has been working for the Centre as an agent and was allegedly caught red handed with signatured ignatured currency notes, further supports his plea of false implication. Continuing further, learned counsel contends that petitioner never met decoy customer sent by PNDT team nor had any telephonic conversation with the other accused. In fact, on the day in question, he was 32 kms away from the ssite.. However, only on the basis of disclosure statement, he (P) has been falsely roped in. Learned counsel next contends that as per Section 28 of PCPNDT PNDT Act Act, the police can register the FIR and investigate the offences under the said Act, however, the C Court ourt can take cognizance of the offence only on a compliant filed by the Appropriate ppropriate Authority uthority, in accordance with Section 28 of the Act Act,, the said procedure has not been followed.
followed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment jud of this Court in Dr. Tejinder Pal Singh Multani v..
399.. Nonetheless, State of Punjab and another, 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 399 petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called for. Prayer for allowing present petition has been made.
4. Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner, learned State counsel contends that petitioner is a well known Agent of the area and arranges customers/patients, who want to get the sex of the foetus f determined.
d. In the present case as well, petitioner had contacted the decoy patient and had assured her that he would be able to get 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 ::: CRM-M--48303-2025 -44- the sex of foetus determined at Suraj Ultrasound Centre. For the said purpose, he demanded Rs.70,000/-.
Rs.70,000/ . He was the person who int introduced roduced the decoy patient to co-accused co accused Ashik Ali to whom signatured notes of Rs.70,000/ was given by her. The PC Rs.70,000/- CPPNDT NDT authorities of the area had been receiving information that for the past sometime, many agents/ middlemen are engaged in unlawful act of sex determination of foetus of pregnant women of Rohtak, Rewai and Nuh etc. It was, in this context that consent of pregnant woman was taken to be a Decoy patient and after noting down the numbers of the currency notes, the same were handed over to her.
her After petitioner introduced the Decoy patient to co co-accused, accused, she was taken to Suraj Ultrasound Centre, where she handed over the money. The accused Ashik Ali, Ali, who had assured that after examination by Dr. Rajveer, the sex of foetus would be disclosed to to her. When the team arrived at Centre, aforesaid Ashik Ali was caught, from his possession signature currency notes of Rs.69,000/ were recovered. Further, during Rs.69,000/- uring the course of investigation, it also came to the notice of the authorities that there had been many calls exchanged between petitioner and co-accused co accused Ashik Ali. Thus, in crux, the submission of learned State counsel is that petitioner a well known tout/agent of the area, arranges for pregnant women and takes them to various nursing homes engaged engaged in the illegal activities of sex determination.
determination Thus, as per learned State counsel, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is very much needed to find out as to who all are engaged in these illegal activities, how many pregnant women have got the foetus of the sex determined through him, which are the hospitals/clinics engaged in these illegal activities as also to find out other intricacies of the case.. In so far as the provisions of Section 28 of PCPNDT Act are concerned, learned State 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 ::: CRM-M--48303-2025 -55- counsel contends that the police can register the FIR and investigate the offences under the said Act, however, the Court can take cognizance of the offence only on a compliant filed by the appropriate authority in accordance with Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act. In support of his contentions, learned State counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment in Hardeep Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others, CRM CRM-M-4211-2014 2014 decided on 04.12.20214, wherein it was held as under:
04.12.20214, under:-
"In the present case, there is no pr proceeding oceeding pending in any Court at this stage. In fact in the reply that has been filed by the State, it is stated that the matter is still under investigation and therefore, the petition for quashing the FIR is not maintainable. Therefore, the stage for taking king cognizance of the offence by the Court has not yet reached. The taking of cognizance of the offence by the Court is normally when the Court applies its mind to the facts of the case, which is primarily at the stage of framing charges."
Further, in Dr. r. Rachna Raina v. State of Haryana, CRM CRM--M-
1120-2023 11.12.2023 this Hon'ble Court in para 9, held as 2023 decided on 11.12.2023, under:-
"9. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that the offences provided under the PNDT Act are cognizable, non-
non bailable and non-compoundable.
compoundable. Cognizable offences are those offences where the police have power to make an arrest without warrant and embark upon the investigation without the permission of the concerned Court. However, Rule 18 18-A A of the Rules of 1996 indicates tha thatt the power of the police to
5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 ::: CRM-M--48303-2025 -66- investigate is not completely barred under the PNDT Act, as the expression 'as far as possible' under Rule 18 18-A A (3) indicates that whenever the Appropriate Authority deems it necessary, it can take the aid and assistance of the police. The provisions of the PNDT Act read with Rule 18 18-A A of the Rules of 1996 provide that assistance of the police for investigating a case under the PNDT Act can be taken in view of the exigency and peculiar circumstances of the case. However, for the Court to take cognizance, the bar under Section 28 of the PNDT Act would come into play. Therefore, when any information is received by the police about any cognizable offence, they are bound to register F.I.R and proceed with the investigation. But under the PNDT Act, there is a restriction that the Court shall take cognizance of an offence only on a complaint made by the concerned Appropriate Authority. The provisions of Rule 18-A 18 of the Rules of 1996 would clearly distinguish the case of the petitioner from the facts in Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and others (supra). It does not support the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in any manner."
Prayer for dismissal of petition has been made.
4. Heard learned counsel for tthe he parties and have perused the documents on record.
5. Before expressing any opinion on submissions raised by both the counsels, it would be appropriate to refer to certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the factors to be kept in mind while 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 ::: CRM-M--48303-2025 -77- dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail, have been discussed.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judicial precedents including Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has time and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take into consideration the facts like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. Court should should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "P. P. Chidambaram vs.
791), has observed as under:-
Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791) under:
"67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C 1973 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre pre-arrest arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 ::: CRM-M--48303-2025 -88- matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstan circumstances ces exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy."
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while deciding the case titled as "Ms. X Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another" (2023 SCC Online SC
279) held as under:-
under:
"11.1. We propose to take a quick look at the considerations that ought to govern grant of anticipatory bail. There are a line of decisions of this court that have underscored the fact that while deciding an application for bail, the court ought to refrain from undertaking a detailed analysis of the eevidence, vidence, the focus being on the prima facie issues including consideration of some reasonable grounds that would go to show if the accused has committed the offence or those facts that would reflect on the seriousness of the offence. The self self-imposed restraint aint on delving deep into the analysis of the evidence at that stage is for valid reasons, namely, to prevent any prejudice to the case set up by the prosecution or the defence likely to be taken by the accused and to keep all aspects of the matter open ti till ll the trial is concluded.
12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee and another),, a Division Bench of this Court had highlighted the factors that ought to be borne in mind while considering the anticipatory bail b application and had stated that ::-
8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 ::: CRM-M--48303-2025 -99- "9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among oth other er circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii)severity
i)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv)danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable nable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
9. In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. 3375,, the Hon'ble The State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 AIR SC 3375 Supreme Court held that "Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner."
10. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the lodging of the FIR has already been mentioned in para 2 of the order. The role of petitioner has also been highlighted in the Status Report. Investigation conducted till date reveal that petitioner is a well known 'Tout' of the area who provides provide patients to Doctors illegally engaged in business of sex 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 ::: CRM-M--48303-2025 -10 10- determination. Further, several calls exchanged between petitioner and co-
co accused Ashik Ali (arrested at the site) clearly indicate his (P) complicity.
complicity Most importantly, the other two accused, namely, Dr. Rajveer and Ashik Alik have specifically named petitioner petitioner as a vital link in the entire incident. As regards objection raised by learned counsel regarding Court being barred to take cognizance, suffice it would be to point out that investigations are still going on. Thus, stage for taking cognizance of offence has not yet arrived. As of now, as has been rightly submitted by learned State counsel, custodial interrogation of petitioner is needed to unearth as to who all are involved in this Racket, how many pregnant women have got sex of foetus determined who are Doctors violating the statute, what is their modus determined, operandi,, the places/clinics used by them etc. Considering the scope and object of the statute which aims at prohibit prohibiting pre-natal natal for determination of sex of the foetus leading to female foeticid eticidee as also in view of the role of petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner has failed to make out a case of exceptional depravity or hardship in his favour entitling him this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest pre bail.
11. The petition being devoid of aany merit is hereby dismissed.
(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
20.11.2025 JUDGE
gbs
Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:25:37 :::