Delhi Court grants bails to doctor couple accused under POCSO Act

New Delhi: In a recent development, the Rohini Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to a male doctor and regular bail to his wife, also a doctor, who were both accused under sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. 

Sessions Judge Jitendra Singh recently, while granting regular bail to the female doctor, noted that there has never been any complaint against the accused under PNDT or any illegal termination of pregnancy. 

According to an ANI report, the accused has cooperated in the investigation by providing all the records. In these circumstances, the applicant/accused is admitted on bail, said the court. 

Interestingly, the boyfriend of the prosecutrix was granted anticipatory bail but the doctor was arrested by IO. While the raids were conducted in the clinic, no evidence of pregnancy or abortion of the prosecutrix was found.

Advocates Ravi Drall and Aditi Drall for doctors during the court proceedings showed the register of clinic in which abortion registry entries were made. In the absence of evidence against the doctor, the gynaecologist was granted regular bail. There were no allegations of abortion against the husband of a gynaecologist who was granted anticipatory bail.

Advocate Aditi Drall submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. It was further submitted that the accused is known doctor and had no knowledge about the facts or the person involved in the present case. It was further submitted that accused is aged about 57 years, a doctor (gynaecologist) by profession and has been working in said Nursing home for the last 15 years. It was further submitted that she has herself got the record checked while in police custody. All the relevant documents have already been collected by the IO; therefore, she is no longer required for custodial interrogation, news agency ANI reported.

Advocate Aditi Drall further submitted that there is no complaint of illegal abortion or termination of abortion against the present accused. 

In this case, one FIR was registered upon the statement of the complainant, who alleged that she was raped by a co-accused various times and that her abortion was done in the nursing home of the present accused.