Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai: In an application by the petitioner (accused) seeking permission to visit hospital for her pregnancy though test tube baby/In-vitro fertilization (‘IVF’), Priya P. Bankar J., rejected the application concurring with the prosecution that it would not be sustainable and will affect the trial as well.
In the matter at hand, petitioner was accused of the serious offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and residing in the vicinity of the Central Jail. She filed an application seeking permission for her pregnancy through test tube baby/IVF. Prosecution claimed that if the said permission was granted, the accused will seek permission to visit the hospital and escort will be required. She will also file bail application on the same ground which will affect the trial and burdened the prosecution.
The Court noted the serious allegations against the petitioner who was in jail. The matter was expedited, and directions were given to dispose of the same by the month of October. The Court found substance in Prosecution’s contention and held that the relief sought by accused is not sustainable while accused is arrested and kept in jail. Thus, the Court rejected the said application with the explanation that apprehension of inconvenience for trial could not be ignored.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Bom) 9, Order Dated: 17-06-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Meera Choudhari-Bhosale.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
