Anticipatory bail granted where miscarriage resulted from family scuffle without intent or knowledge of pregnancy.

The applicant, a 35-year-old homemaker, filed a first bail application seeking anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 216/2024 registered at Police Station Boda

The case arose from a physical scuffle on October 8, 2024, involving a custody dispute over a minor child, Sukhvinder, between the applicant and the complainant’s family

It was alleged that the applicant pelted a stone at one Sukhbir, while co-accused individuals used weapons (farsi) and sticks against other family members

One of the victims, Tanisha, subsequently suffered an abortion, leading the police to add Section 92 of the BNS (causing miscarriage) to the charges

The applicant contended she was unaware of the pregnancy and that hospital records described the incident as a "fall at home during family quarrel"

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, given the nature of the family dispute and the absence of criminal antecedents

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the statutory framework for the High Court to grant anticipatory bail

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Section 92 (causing miscarriage without woman's consent), Section 296 (obscene acts/songs), Section 331(5) (grievous hurt), Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 324(4) (mischief), and Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation)

The court found that the incident was prima facie a "family quarrel" regarding the custody of a minor rather than a calculated criminal enterprise

It noted the applicant's defense that there was no intention to cause an abortion and that she lacked knowledge of the victim’s two-month pregnancy

The court emphasized that the applicant had no prior criminal record and that her socio-economic status as a homemaker reduced the likelihood of her fleeing justice or tampering with evidence

Furthermore, the court determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary for the investigation, and jail incarceration would cause undue social disrepute and hardship

The court also highlighted the hospital history indicating the injury resulted from a "fall," which supported the applicant's claim regarding the lack of direct intent for the abortion

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions: the applicant must cooperate with the investigation, must not commit similar offences, must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and must comply with the provisions of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C./Section 346 of the BNSS during trial

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless bail is cancelled due to a breach of conditions