AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 201 wordsHeard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per Rules within
one month of resumption of normal functioning of the court. Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video
conference.
The application, being CRAN No. 3418 of 2020, is disposed of. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the
instant case.
Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. We have considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of
allegation and the fact that the allegation of abortion is not supported by material particulars with regard to the date and time of administration of
deleterious medicines, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties
of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.