[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Abhishek Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8550
CRL.P No. 1956 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1956 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
ABHISHEK GOWDA
S/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT M SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
MELUKOTE HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURATALUK,
MANDYA - 571 434
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed AT BENGALURU - 560 001
by PRASHANTH ...RESPONDENT
NV
Location: High
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)
Court of
Karnataka
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED NO.6 IN
CR.NO.102/2024 ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT IN PANDAVAPURA
P.S., PENDING ON III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS, AT MANDYA,
SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 312, 313,
315, 316, 34 OF IPC, U/S 19 OF KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL
ESTABLISHMENT ACT, U/S 4 OF THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF
PREGNANCY ACT, 1971.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8550
CRL.P No. 1956 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.6 is before this Court seeking
grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime
No.102/2024 of Pandavapura Police Station, pending on the file
of the learned Civil Judge (Jn.Dn) & JMFC, Pandavapura,
Mandya, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
312, 313, 315, 316 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
(for short ' IPC), Section 19 of the Karnataka Private Medical
Establishment Act, 2007 and Section 4 of the Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971, on the basis of the first information
lodged by the informant - Bettaswami.
2. Heard Sri. Manjunath B.R., learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Rangaswamy, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the
materials on record.
NC: 2026:KHC:8550
HC-KAR
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. The petitioner being accused No.6 is seeking grant
of bail. He was apprehended on 02.09.2024 and since then, he
is in judicial custody.
5. It is noticed that initially this petitioner had
approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.12261/2024 seeking to
release him on bail. It was noticed that he was absconding, a
split-up charge sheet came to be filed against him, his
application for anticipatory bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC
came to be rejected, he was later apprehended on 02.09.2024.
Considering this conduct and also in view of the fact that
specific allegations are made against him in Cl.No.17 of the
charge sheet alleging that he used to scan CW2 and had
NC: 2026:KHC:8550
HC-KAR
informed her that the fetus is female, further, he recommended
for its termination, it was opined that the act of the petitioner is
very serious in nature, since he was not a qualified technician
to conduct scanning. It was also observed that even the
qualified radiologists/technicians are barred from disclosing the
sex of the fetus and inspite of that, the petitioner has
committed the offence. Considering the nature and seriousness
of the offence, his bail petition came to be rejected vide order
dated 12.12.2024.
6. The final report came to be filed against accused
Nos.1 to 13. It is stated that the matter is now pending before
the Trial Court. But the charge is not yet framed. It is not in
dispute that all other accused except the petitioner, are
enlarged on bail. The orders granting bail to accused Nos.1 and
12 are also produced for perusal of the Court.
7. Accused No.1 is said to be the D-group employee,
who is alleged to be the kingpin, as she was residing in
Government quarters and used to conduct illegal medical
termination of pregnancy of various women, with the help of
accused No.12. This petitioner being accused No.6, was
NC: 2026:KHC:8550
HC-KAR
conducting scanning and used to inform that the fetus is female
and used to recommend for termination of pregnancy. Even
though the allegations are very serious in nature, the fact
remains that the other accused, who are also actively involved
in commission of the offence are already enlarged on bail.
Under such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for the
benefit of parity. No purpose would be served by detaining him
in custody, as conclusion of the trial in the matter may take
sufficiently longer period of time and it will amount to
infringement of his right to life and liberty. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that the petitioner may be granted bail subject to
conditions, which will take care of the interest of the
prosecution as well as the interest of the complainant and the
witnesses.
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime
No.102/2024 of Pandavapura Police Station, on obtaining the
NC: 2026:KHC:8550
HC-KAR
bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with
two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar
offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper
with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court
as and when required.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as
stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the
Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial
Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify
the correctness of the address and authenticity of the
documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a
report may be called for in that regard, which is to be
submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial
Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for
the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
CT:VS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
