- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8550 CRL.P No. 1956 of 2026 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 AT BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP) 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. Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8550 CRL.P No. 1956 of 2026 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. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8550 CRL.P No. 1956 of 2026 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: R E A S O N S 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8550 CRL.P No. 1956 of 2026 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8550 CRL.P No. 1956 of 2026 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8550 CRL.P No. 1956 of 2026 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