Mrs.Manishetty Mangamma vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No.318 of 2026 on the file of Adibatla Police Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 89 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

Heard Ms.N.Vanisree, learned Counsel representing Mr.Dr.Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused No.1, under the false promise of marriage, sexually exploited the de facto complainant and, upon her becoming pregnant, took her to the petitioner/accused No.2 for termination of the pregnancy. It is alleged that, upon payment of Rs.50,000/-, the petitioner conducted the abortion without the consent of the de facto complainant. Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) and has been falsely implicated in the offence on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of accused No.1. He further submits that, even after conducting a search of the first aid center, the police did not find any direct or indirect material connecting the petitioner with the alleged termination of the pregnancy. He further submits that there is no material evidencing the alleged payment of Rs.50,000/- by accused No.1 to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the principal allegations are against accused No.1, who has already been taken into custody and enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has a permanent abode, and is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation conducted thus far has revealed that accused No.1 approached the petitioner, who is running a clinic at Koheda Village, and that, upon receiving a payment of Rs.50,000/- from accused No.1, the petitioner agreed to perform the abortion. It is further alleged that the abortion was carried out without the consent of the de facto complainant. He further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the petitioner's presence may be required for custodial interrogation for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation. It is therefore contended that, at this stage, granting anticipatory bail may prejudice or impede the investigation. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that, at the instance of accused No.1, the petitioner/Accused No.2 performed an abortion on the de facto complainant without her consent and charged an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the same. The remand report of accused No.1, which has been placed on record, states that accused No.1, after deciding to get the abortion performed by any means, planned accordingly and approached Dr.Bhavani, who demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- for performing the abortion and the abortion was performed after receiving the amount. The petitioner/Accused No.2 is only midwife with different name. This Court finds that no specific explanation has been forthcoming from the prosecution materials with regard to the discrepancy concerning the identity of the accused.

Nevertheless, it is a settled proposition of law that the grant of anticipatory bail is intended to secure the personal liberty of an individual while balancing the same with the legitimate requirements of investigation by the prosecution. It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to take into consideration various aspects. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that the Court should consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the exact role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence, the availability of the accused for the judicial process, and the genuine requirement of custodial interrogation.

In light of the aforesaid settled principles, and having regard to the discrepancy concerning the identity of the accused noticed above, the petitioner’s categorical expression as to her willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and in the absence of any material to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond or evade the process of law, influence the prosecution witnesses, tamper with the evidence, or otherwise obstruct or prejudice the course of the investigation, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, such relief shall be subject to conditions to ensure the petitioner's availability and cooperation during the course of the investigation and to safeguard the interests of a fair and effective investigation.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Adibatla Police Station, Hyderabad on or before 02.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release her on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of her release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier.

The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

The petitioner shall furnish her complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.

The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall she tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.