Summary
The Supreme Court declined bail in a prosecution for alleged unlicensed prenatal sex determination and sex-selective abortion. The sting-operation evidence, alleged payment and seizure of equipment established a prima facie case, while the gravity and societal impact weighed against relief. Parity with a co-accused failed because the petitioner’s alleged role was substantially more active. The findings were confined to bail, and she could request expedited trial within a year.
Issues
- Whether the prima facie material and the co-accused’s release warranted bail for the petitioner.
Held
- In a nonbailable case, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, its societal impact and the existence of a prima facie case inform discretion. The alleged payment during the sting and the seized ultrasound and medical equipment provided such a case here. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5)
- The serious consequences of alleged sex determination and sex-selective abortion weighed against leniency on this record. The petitioner remained free to contest the allegations at trial. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- Parity was inappropriate because the petitioner allegedly conducted the illegal medical practices, whereas the co-accused’s alleged role was confined to transporting clients. (¶ 6)
- The petitioner could ask the trial court to expedite proceedings and decide them within one year. All factual observations were confined to the bail petition and could not prejudice adjudication on the trial evidence. (¶¶ 7, 8)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed and refusal of bail maintained, with liberty to seek expedited trial and an express reservation of trial merits.