Female Infanticide In Punjab & Haryana Is 'Deeply Disturbing': HC Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail Of Doctor Accused Of Running Sex-Determination Racket

Observing that "female infanticide remains a deeply disturbing issue in India, particularly in this part of the country", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a doctor accused of operating widespread illegal sex determination racket in both states.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "It needs to be pointed out that female infanticide remains a deeply disturbing issue in India, particularly in this part of the country; Particularly, alarming aspect is the involvement of unethical medical practitioners who, in violation of the hippocratic oath, covertly, conduct sex determination tests, thus, enabling this grave crime."

Despite the prohibitions in the PC&PNDT Act, some doctors clandestinely perform these tests, betraying their ethical commitments and the principles of medical practice. The Hippocratic oath demands that doctors protect life and cause no harm; however, some of these practitioners motivated by greed, become complicit in the extermination of female foetuses, the judge added.

The Court was hearing an anticipatory bail of Dr Anant Ram who booked in an FIR lodged under Sections 3, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 4(4), 5(2), 6, 18(1), 23, 25, 29 of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PC&PNDT Act) and Sections 120-B, 34 of the IPC registered at Haryana's Hisar District.

Dr. Ram was accused of operating a widespread illegal sex determination racket in the States of Punjab and Haryana, using a portable ultrasound machine in undisclosed locations. Customers were allegedly blindfolded before being taken to these locations to avoid detection. The petitioner was also involved in seven other criminal cases, five of which involved similar offences under the PC&PNDT Act.

State counsel submitted that despite the petitioner joining the investigation in December 2023, he has been totally non-cooperative and has failed to hand over the laptop and portable ultrasound machine used by him in carrying out the sex determination test.

It was also asserted by the State counsel that even though the petitioner was granted multiple opportunities to cooperate with the investigation, however, since he had failed to do so, his custodial interrogation was required in the present case.

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the FIR could not have been lodged for offences under the PC&PNDT Act.

"There can be no manner of doubt, that an FIR can indeed be registered, and the police can investigate offences as alleged against the petitioner," the judge opined while relying on Hardeep Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others (CRM-M-4211-2014).

The Court also considered the serious allegations of operating widespread illegal sex determination rackets in both states.

Justice Kaul highlighted that "The involvement of unethical medical practitioners in facilitating this practice through clandestine sex determination test is particularly reprehensible, as it represents the betrayal of the very principles of the medical profession."

While noting the submissions of state counsel that despite multiple opportunities to join the investigation, the petitioner has not cooperated, the Court opined that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary due to the recovery of the portable ultrasound machine and laptop, both crucial for uncovering the full extent of the petitioner's illegal activities.

It further rejected the contention that once the petitioner had joined the investigation, his custodial interrogation would be unnecessary only for the purpose of recovery of the portable ultrasound machine and laptop as it would amount to the petitioner being forced to confess his involvement in the crime in question.

Reliance was placed on Sumita Pardeep v. Arun Kumar [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870], wherein the Apex Court categorically held that the absence of a requirement of custodial interrogation does not technically justify granting anticipatory bail. The investigation in the present case is still underway and the complaint is yet to be filed by the Appropriate Authority before the competent Court.

Adding that the petitioner prima facie comes across as a habitual offender, the Court rejected the plea.

Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Tejbahadur Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

 Title: Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 220

Click here to read/download the order