Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma declined anticipatory bail to an accused in a case alleging illegal ultrasound and sex determination that resulted in the death of a pregnant woman. The Court remarked that the practice of determining the sex of an unborn child diminishes the worth of female life and weakens the vision of a society free from discrimination. Justice Sharma noted that such conduct promotes a mindset viewing girls as burdens rather than equals and exposes expectant mothers to serious medical risks. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation, the Court rejected the plea for pre-arrest protection.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Karawal Nagar, Delhi, alleging offences under Sections 85, 316(2), 89, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complaint concerned the death of a woman who was allegedly subjected to an illegal ultrasound and sex determination procedure during her third pregnancy. The deceased, married in 2020, had two daughters, one of whom was physically challenged. It was alleged that her husband and in-laws harassed her for dowry and coerced her into an abortion after learning, through an unlawful ultrasound allegedly conducted by the applicant and his son in Bulandshahr, that she was expecting a female child.

Also Read: BREAKING | Stray Dogs Case: Supreme Court Summons Chief Secretaries of States and UTs Over Failure to File Compliance Affidavits on ABC Rules

She later died following the procedure. The applicant sought anticipatory bail, asserting false implication and lack of direct evidence linking him to the incident. The State opposed the plea, referring to another FIR under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act against the applicant’s family, and contended that the ultrasound machine had not been recovered. The prosecution submitted that custodial interrogation was required to uncover the broader network and ascertain the applicant’s role in conducting illegal sex determination activities.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that “the practice of determining the sex of a fetus and taking subsequent actions based on that information is not merely a violation of law, but each instance of such nature undermines the value of female life and signals that some lives are deemed less worthy than others due to their gender.” The Court recorded that “it fosters a culture in which girls are seen as burdens rather than equal members of the community, and endangers pregnant women by exposing them to unsafe medical procedures.”

The Bench further observed that “beyond the immediate family, such acts corrode social conscience, and strike at the hope of a society to be free from discrimination.” It stated that such offences are “highly detrimental to societal interests” and require strict legal intervention to prevent recurrence.

The Court noted that investigation revealed the applicant and his son, both motor mechanics, were allegedly involved in performing illegal ultrasounds to determine the sex of fetuses. It recorded that the son impersonated as a doctor and that photographs and other materials linked them to the offence. Justice Sharma stated that “given the gravity of the offence and its societal consequences, it is essential that such acts are investigated thoroughly and dealt with firmly.” The Court observed that leniency would embolden others to commit similar offences, and that a decisive response was necessary to protect the dignity and rights of unborn female children.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Declares Ivory Ownership Certificates Issued to Actor Mohanlal Illegal and Void; Says Government Orders Were Issued Without Legal Authority

The Court directed that “the present applicant has not joined the investigation, and his custodial interrogation is necessary at this stage.” It further stated that such interrogation is required “not only for the recovery of the ultrasound machine but also to identify other accomplices, trace other potential victims, examine financial transactions and proceeds of the unlawful activities, and determine whether the accused have connections with any hospital where illegal abortions are being conducted. In view of these considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the release of the present applicant at this stage would be inappropriate, and therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.”

“Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State with Ms. Amisha Dahiya, Advocates; Mr. Tushar Jaiswal and Ms. Priyanka Rani, Advocates.

Case Title: Bhupender Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: Bail Appln. 3786/2025
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma