Shruthi vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 2316 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2316 Kant
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

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

NC: 2026:KHC:15339

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

NC: 2026:KHC:15339

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

NC: 2026:KHC:15339

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.