Bombay High Court
SHAIKH NARGIS JAVEDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the offence is serious, the applicant lacks legal qualification to terminate pregnancy, and evidence links her to the crime.
Summary
Shaikh Nargis Javed, a homeopathic medical practitioner, applied for anticipatory bail after the police registered a case (CR No. 203/2026) alleging she administered pills that terminated the pregnancy of a minor girl, violating Sections 64 and 91 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act. The FIR did not initially name her, but the investigation recorded the victim’s mother stating that the applicant gave four tablets for Rs.15,000, leading to termination. The State argued that the applicant is not qualified to perform such a procedure and that the offence is serious, while the applicant contended there were no specific allegations against her in the FIR. The Court found the evidence sufficient to link the applicant to the illegal termination, noted her lack of legal qualification, and held that the seriousness of the crime precludes grant of pre‑arrest bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in view of the alleged illegal termination of pregnancy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act.
- Whether a homeopathic practitioner is authorized to perform termination of pregnancy under the applicable statutes.
- Whether the evidence on record sufficiently connects the applicant to the offence to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 64, 91
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 21, 4, 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal termination of pregnancy
- POCSO Act
- medical practitioner qualification
- serious offence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40187
918-ABA-944-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
918 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 944 OF 2026
Shaikh Nargis Javed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Mr. S. S. Kazi h/f Mr. A. M. Inamdar, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent/State
CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE :SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
P. C. :
1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.
203/2026 registered with Police Station Majalgaon Rural, District Beed for
the offences punishable under Sections 64 and 91 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act.
2. First information report indicates that the minor daughter of
the informant was found pregnant. The said fact was ascertained after
sonography was conducted since the said girl was taken to the hospital with
complaint of stomach ache. First information report though states about she
becoming pregnant on account of physical relationship with unknown
person, during the course of investigation it is revealed that the girl was
taken to the present Applicant who has administered pills to the girl,
resulting into termination of her pregnancy.
Page 1 of 3
918-ABA-944-2026.odt
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is
a lady and a medical practitioner. It is his submission that there are no
specific allegations in the FIR against Applicant. He further submits that in
fact mother of the victim also sought to have been made accused herein this
case. It is further submitted that co-accused i.e. Dr. Jaju as well as boy who
allegedly committed sexual assault on the victim are enlarged on bail.
According to him, considering the nature of allegations against the
Applicant, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary.,
4. Learned APP opposed the said contentions by submitting that
the Applicant in any case is not authorized to carry out termination of
pregnancy as she holds the qualification and decree in Homeopathy. He
further submits that the statement of the mother of the victim in no
uncertain terms indicates about the involvement of the Applicant in the
crime. According to him, having regard to the serious nature of crime and
implication of the same, this is not a case for grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. Prima facie perusal of the record though indicates that in the
FIR Applicant has not been named, however, during the course of
investigation her involvement in the crime is seen. It is pertinent to note that
the mother of the victim in no uncertain terms gives statement with regard
to the manner in which the victim was taken to the present Applicant and
against the payment of Rs.15,000/-, she was given four tablets for
Page 2 of 3
918-ABA-944-2026.odt
consumption. After consumption of the same, the pregnancy of the victim
girl was terminated. There is evidence on record collected during the course
of investigation indicates that the sonography report of the victim indicates
that she was pregnant at the relevant time. In so far as grant of bail to the
co-accused is concerned, there are no allegations against them that they
were responsible for the terminating pregnancy of the victim girl. As such,
there is no question of taking into consideration the said orders for any
purpose.
6. This Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP to
the effect that the offence is serious in nature, illegal and unauthorized
termination of pregnancy cannot be considered lightly. In any case,
Applicant was not entitled to terminate pregnancy of the victim legally for
want of qualification. Needless to say that the crime of this nature is serious
and against society. This is not the case wherein there is no evidence to
connect Applicant with the crime in question nor it is a case of possible false
implication. Having regard to these facts, this Court finds no justification to
grant pre-arrest bail to the Applicant.
7. In view of above, Application stands dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…