Karnataka High Court
Shruthi vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15339
CRL.P No. 1579 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1579 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHRUTHI
W/O JAGADHEESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT SHRAVANABELAGOLA ROAD,
GANIG STREET, GANAPTHI PARK,
K.R PETE TOWN, MANDYA
Digitally PIN - 571 426
signed by
SREEDHARAN ...PETITIONER
BANGALORE
SUSHMA (BY SRI. SHARATH J M., ADVOCATE)
LAKSHMI
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15339
CRL.P No. 1579 of 2026
HC-KAR
AT BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO RELEASE
HER ON BAIL, WHO IS ACCUSED NO.2 IN CR.NO.132/2024
(S.C.NO.5082/2024) ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT
PANDAVAPURA P.S., NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 312, 313, 315, 316
R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 19 OF THE
KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT 2007
AND SECTION 4 OF THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF
PREGNANCY ACT 1971, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15339
CRL.P No. 1579 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.2, is before this Court seeking for regular bail in Crime No.132/2024 registered by the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 312, 313, 315, 316 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 19 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 and Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Brief facts of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Pavithra, wife of Chidambara, lodged a complaint stating that she became pregnant in the month of January 2024. Her in-laws were pressurizing her to have a boy baby. Therefore, they met Karthik, and he disclosed that one Abhi has a scanning centre and would find out the status of the child. Accordingly, the husband of the informant contacted Abhi who asked them to come to Pandavapura. It was diagnosed that there is a female foetus. The in-laws and family members, including her husband, were asking her to go for abortion. However, she was not willing and she -4- NC: 2026:KHC:15339 CRL.P No. 1579 of 2026 HC-KAR had refused to go for abortion. However, Abhi / accused No.1 had given mobile number of accused No.3 - Asha Shivraj and asked the husband of the complainant / accused No.5 to pay money. It is further stated that, finally, the complainant got aborted against her will. Therefore, she lodged a complaint. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.
3. Heard Sri Sharath J.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the averments of the charge sheet would indicate that accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed a similar offence, that is, they made the victim to consume ten tablets, as a result of which, the female foetus was found dead in the womb. Thereafter, they removed the baby and it has been disposed of by the husband of the complainant.
5. It is further submitted that the similarly placed accused No.3 has been granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court. Therefore, the same parity would be applicable to the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:15339 CRL.P No. 1579 of 2026 HC-KAR present petitioner also. Making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that there are allegations made against the petitioner and others and it has to be tried by the Trial Court properly. In fact, the petitioner has committed a heinous offence in administering the tablets against the will of the victim for abortion. It is a case of infanticide. The manner in which the petitioner and others have committed the offence would indicate the ill-will and also crookedness of the petitioner and others. Killing the female child in the womb is not a mere offence, but also an offence committed against the Society at large and the nation. Therefore, such matter has to be regulated seriously. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the charge sheet. It would indicate that the present petitioner and accused No.3 have administered the tablets for abortion of the victim -6- NC: 2026:KHC:15339 CRL.P No. 1579 of 2026 HC-KAR knowingly that there is a female child in the womb. It is needless to state that the allegations made against the petitioner and accused No.3 are similar and omnibus allegations are made against these two accused and it is stated that, accused No.3 has been granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court. Hence, it is appropriate to grant her bail on parity.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged
on bail in Crime No.132/2024 of
respondent-police for the offences
stated supra, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with one
surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:15339 CRL.P No. 1579 of 2026 HC-KAR
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.
In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30