CRM-M/48171/2026 of GEETA BHALLA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 August 2026

CRM-M-4817

IN THE HIG

Geeta Bhalla

State of Harya

Date of decisi Date of Uploa

CORAM:

Present:-

SUMEET GO

Nagarik Surak P.C.) seeking No.228 dated Sections 91, 3 Pregnancy Ac

2. hand is drawn Court (whereb reads as under 1-2026 GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM-M-48171-2 versus ana ion: August 27, 2026 ading: August 27, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate for th Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senio *****

OEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed un ksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN g grant of anticipatory bail to the 08.07.2026, registered for commis 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 3, ct, 1971 added later on), at Police S For the sake of convenience, rele n from the order dated 21.08.2026 by anticipatory bail plea of the p r: “2. Briefly, the facts of the case are along with ASI Sombir and L/HC Suman Hisar, when they received information fr

HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner ….Respondent EET GOEL he petitioner. or DAG Haryana. nder Section 482 of the Bharatiya NSS’) (earlier Section 438 of Cr. e petitioner, in case bearing FIR ssion of offences punishable under 4, 5 of the Medical Termination of Station City Hisar, District Hisar. evant factual milieu of the case in passed by the concerned Sessions petitioner was declined); the same e that on 08.07.2026, ASI Vinod Kumar, n, was on patrolling duty near Sector-14, rom ERV/Rider No. 34 that a man named

r t a . R r f n s e , , d

Anil Kumar, son of Wazir Singh, resident of village Niyana, District Hisar, was carrying a baby foetus and roaming around the cremation ground at Rishi Nagar with an intention to dispose of the same. He was apprehended. On inquiry, he stated that his girlfriend, Suman, daughter of Rohtash, resident of village Niyana, got pregnant. Since they were not married and Suman had become pregnant, out of fear of embarrassment, they decided to terminate the pregnancy. Upon this, the present FIR was registered. During the inquiry, Anil disclosed the name of Balaji Pharmacy, Baroda Road, Gohana, where a doctor allegedly assisted them in committing the offence involved in the present case. On 18.07.2026, vide notice, applicant Geeta Bhalla was summoned to appear before the Investigating Officer and to join the investigation. On 28.07.2026, a team headed by Dr. Anamika Bishnoi, Civil Surgeon, Hisar, conducted a raid at the premises of Krishna Clinic being run by applicant-accused. On 30.07.2026, Dr. Anamika Bishnoi, Civil Surgeon, Hisar, produced the record and seized articles relating to the said raid, to the investigating officer.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has further been contended that the petitioner was not named in the first disclosure of the co-accused – Anil Kumar, however, on the basis of the subsequent disclosure by the said co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated in this case with the allegation that the petitioner assisted in the abortion in question. It has been contended that the said disclosure is not admissible in law and, thus, the petitioner cannot be held liable for commission of alleged offence in question. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner is a medical practitioner with the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine Act, 1951 bearing Certificate No.35844. Learned counsel has argued that the case of the prosecution is highly improbable inasmuch as, allegedly, after getting abortion done at Gohana, a person carried 16 weeks foetus to Hisar which is 106 kilometers far away and threw the same in the bushes. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a lady aged 61 years.

3.1. Learned counsel has further contended that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required. It has been contended that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. It has been stated that considering the seriousness of the allegations, there exists a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner, if granted the concession of anticipatory bail, may abscond from the process of justice as also tamper with the prosecution evidence. Learned State counsel has also submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective and fair investigation. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel has prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the prosecution case, and upon a perusal of the record as well as the order passed by the Court below, it prima facie emerges that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. It is, prima facie, borne out from the prosecution case that co-accused was found carrying a baby foetus with an intention to dispose of the same. The said co-accused, in his disclosure, named the petitioner who assisted in committing the offence in question, thus, the prosecution case prima facie reveals the complicity of the petitioner in commission of offence in question. It has also been noted by the Court below that no document with regard to enrolment of the petitioner with the

Haryana Medical Board authorizing her to practice as a Registered Medical Practitioner in Haryana has been produced by the petitioner. In view of the serious allegations, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not merit the grant of the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

6.1. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

8. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE August 27, 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No