Punjab-Haryana High Court
Beena Devi vs State Of Haryana on 11 March, 2022
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
(I) CRM-M-6514-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 11.3.2022
Beena Devi ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
(II) CRM-M-2275-2022 (O&M)
Dr. Virender Kumar Singhal ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-6514-2021.
Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-2275-2022.
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana,
assisted by ASI Manish.
*****
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2022 01:54:29 :::
CRM-M Nos. 6514 & 2275 of 2022 (O&M) -2-
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
CRM-42382-2021 in CRM-M-6514-2021
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed as prayed for and Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all
exceptions.
Main Cases
1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions
wherein petitioners Beena Devi and Dr. Virender Kumar Singhal,
seek grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 662, dated
11.11.2020, Police Station Bhiwani City, District Bhiwani, under
Sections 23, 29, 4, 5(1)(a), 6(a) of the Pre Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Regulations and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 and
Sections 120-B, 420 IPC.
2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that a secret information was
received by the police on 10.11.2020 to the effect that Illegal Sex
Determination of fetus was being conducted in a hospital situated in
Ghaziabad, UP. Pursuant to receipt of said information, the police
party planned a raid on 11.11.2020 and a pregnant woman namely
Kavita was nominated as a bogus customer. Said Kavita contacted
Smt. Beena who agreed to get the Sex Determination Test conducted
for a consideration of Rs.50,000/-. Beena Devi took the decoy
customer Kavita along with her to Ghaziabad, UP in a car which was
being driven by Arvind. Petitioner-Dr. Virender Kumar is alleged to
have conducted the Sex Determination Test and after the same was
conducted, the decoy customer along with Beena travelled back to
2 of 4
CRM-M Nos. 6514 & 2275 of 2022 (O&M) -3-
Bhiwani in the same car driven by Arvind. The raiding party
followed the said car and apprehended the accused when they entered
Bhiwani.
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners have submitted that a
false case has been foisted against the accused and that in fact the
jurisdiction lay at Ghaziabad where the offence was allegedly
committed and that no FIR could have been lodged in Bhiwani. It
has further been submitted that in any case the Court at Bhiwani
would not have any jurisdiction to try the case, in view of a bar laid
down in Section 28 of Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulations
and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994, which says that it is only upon
a complaint being filed by Appropriate Authority that cognizance can
be taken for such offences.
4. Opposing the petitions, learned State counsel submits that in view of
the heinous nature of offences and the fact that it was in Bhiwani that
the decoy customer had contacted Beena and it was in Bhiwani itself
that the accused were arrested while they were on their way back
from Ghaziabad, the FIR could very well have been lodged at
Ghaziabad. Learned State counsel has further submitted that a
Division Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh and another Vs. State
of Haryana and others 2014 (3) SCC 92 and another judgment
passed by this Court in Dr. Aparna Singhal Vs. State of Haryana and
another, CRM-M-421 of 2021, has held that FIR can very well be
lodged in view of provisions of Section 27 of the Act. Learned State
counsel has however, informed that both the accused have been
3 of 4
CRM-M Nos. 6514 & 2275 of 2022 (O&M) -4-
behind bars since the last about 1 year and 4 months and that none of
the petitioner is involved in any other case.
5. I have considered the aforesaid submissions addressed before this
Court.
6. It is no doubt correct that both the petitioners are specifically named
in the FIR. However, this Court finds that the petitioners have been
behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year and 4 months, in a case
wherein a maximum sentence can be 3 years only. Conclusion of
trial is likely to take time inasmuch as the trial has not even
commenced and 15 PWs have been cited.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid position in mind and while also
bearing in mind that the petitioners are not involved in any other case
earlier, further detention of the petitioners will not serve any useful
purpose. The petitions, as such, are accepted and the petitioners are
ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate concerned.
8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected
case.
11.3.2022 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
mohan JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
4 of 4
