Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) by the petitioner who was posted as Clerk with Nodal Officer Panipat, Haryana (‘Nodal Officer’) under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, (‘PNDT Act’), seeking anticipatory bail, Anoop Chitkara, J.*, opined that when the officials at such responsible, sensitive, powerful positions, instead of proudly shouldering their responsibilities, pawn off their morals, their honour, their duties for illegal financial gains, the society needs to get alarmed. The Court opined that protecting the life of our future generation was not only one of the most fundamental duties of the legal system but also of the world at large and such a pivotal constitutional duty could not be callously brushed away.
The Court opined that they were under an obligation to be extra cautious while granting bail to the corrupt government employees and these gangs, as well as the doctors who indulge in these unsensitized, unethical, immoral activities. Thus, the Court opined that in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner failed to make a case for anticipatory bail.
Background
In the present case, on 07-03-2024, complainant handed over his complaint to Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, wherein he alleged that he was running an Imaging and Diagnostic Centre at Barsat Road, Panipat. Complainant stated that on 2023, Nodal Officer and petitioner had checked patient forms in their centre and issued him notice by deliberately creating errors with the intention for taking bribe. When complainant met the petitioner regarding the issued notice, he told to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as bribe money as per the instructions given by the Nodal Officer. Thereafter, complainant gave reply to notice in December, 2023 but showed his inability to pay the said bribe amount upon which the petitioner and the Nodal Officer threatened the complainant that if bribe amount was not paid, they will falsely implicate him in PNDT cases. However, on repeated request of the complainant, petitioner typed Rs. 2 lakhs as the bribe amount on his calculator with the assurance that the matter will be settled.
Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered under Sections 384, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. It was alleged by the complainant, that petitioner in collusion with the Nodal Officer, demanded bribe of Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant through Managing Director of Aadhar Hospital, to settle the notice issued to the complainant doctor, under the PNTD Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the annexed call details between the Managing Director of Aadhar Hospital, petitioner and complainant, and observed that it contained details of negotiations of bribe amount from Rs. 2.20 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs, wherein the complainant explicitly mentioned that he needs time to pay Rs. 2 lakhs. The Court opined that there were no reasons for the petitioner to demand Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant, more so when the inspection of the complainant’s clinic was the primary purpose of the petitioner and Nodal Officer’s employment.
The Court after perusal of the calls and its transcript opined that these massive calls highlight his complicity and corroborate the complainant’s allegations about the demand for money and its subsequent recovery from the Managing Director of Aadhar Hospital and the petitioner. A perusal of these conversations and the recovery of money from the hospital, the prosecution had collected sufficient evidence that prima facie pointed toward the petitioner’s involvement, and he was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court opined that petitioner was also not entitled to bail on parity because the bail of the co-accused was a regular bail filed under Section 439 of the CrPC, and the parameters while granting a regular bail was different than anticipatory bail.
The Court opined that there were other reasons to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner’s job was to keep an eye on the clinics that had licenses to conduct ultrasound, and such machines were under the provisions of the PNDT Act. There were widespread whisperings of misuse of such ultrasound machines in many areas, for sex determination, which lead to female feticide.
The Court opined that there could not be any rationale to condemn and discriminate one human against another on the basis of their gender. A society where the practice of female foeticide was not looked down upon, not acted upon, not curbed, would further deny equal status to equal human beings just because of one’s inherent, natural, biologically given gender. The Court opined that people in responsible and powerful positions, who, for their small monetary gains misuse such sensitive positions, not only betray the trust the system had reposed in them, but also fail the society by making their conduct highly unethical, immoral and reduce themselves to the status of lowest kinds of human beings.
The Court opined that the reports suggested that a large number of unethical gangs also approached some of these diagnostic centres, and under one pretext or other, they make payment of money for illegal sex determination and also make video recordings of such conversations. Based on such evidence, they blackmail these unethical people and doctors and further extract and extort massive money. The Court opined that instead of checking and putting an end to such practices, certain corrupt employees at such highly sensitive and noble posts, very lightly, shrug off their principal duties.
The Court opined that the Nodal agencies under the PNDT Act were supposed to work with the highest standard of morality and had to be bold enough to work towards curbing female foeticide. When officials at such responsible, sensitive, powerful positions, instead of proudly shouldering their responsibilities, pawn off their morals, their honour, their duties for illegal financial gains, the society needs to get alarmed. The Court opined that protecting the life of our future generation was not only one of the most fundamental duties of the legal system but also of the world at large and such a pivotal constitutional duty could not be callously brushed away.
The Court opined that the Courts were under an obligation to be extra cautious while granting bail to the corrupt government employees and these gangs, as well as the doctors who indulge in these unsensitized, unethical, immoral activities. Thus, the Court relied on Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364, and Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379 and opined that in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner failed to make a case for anticipatory bail.
[Naveen v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 4211, decided on 28-05-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Anoop Chitkara
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Vikrant Pamboo, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
