SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
BINAY KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CR. APP (SJ) 496/2021



Advocates:
['Ratneshwar Prasad', '', 'Yogendra Kumar Singh', 'A G', '', 'Binay Krishna', 'Spl P P']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 496 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2020 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada

======================================================

Binay Kumar. Male, aged about 38 years, Son of Naval Kishor Singh,

Resident of Mohalla- New Area Mahabir Nagar Purani Jail Road, PS- Nagar

(Town), District- Nawada.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s

:

Mr. Ratneshwar Prasad, Advocate

For the State

:

Mr. Binay Krishna, Special PP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 26-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ratneshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Special PP’) for the

State.

3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated

02.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st-

cum-Special Judge the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Nawada in ABP No. 1239 of

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.496 of 2021 dt.26-08-2021

2/5

2020, by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has

been rejected.

4. The appellant apprehends arrest in connection with

Nawada Town PS Case No. 133 of 2020 / Special Case (SC/ST)

No. 22 of 2020 dated 12.03.2020, instituted under Sections 419,

420, 323, 427, 504, 304, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 3(2)

v of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

5. As per the FIR, the informant Sudhir Kumar has

alleged that the wife of his brother was pregnant on 07.02.2020 at

4:00 PM, and she was admitted to Sadar Hospital, Nawada from

where a lady doctor had referred her to Magadh Medical College,

Gaya and when they were coming out of the gate of the Sadar

Hospital, Nawada, co-accused Ranju Devi and Panchali Devi,

Asha workers, had said that unnecessarily the case has been

referred to Magadh Medical College, Gaya and that the patient

would be properly attended by a qualified doctor and took them to

Maa Ahilya Janch Ghar where she was advised to undergo

cesarean operation for delivery and despite the informant’s side

not being in favour, pressure was exerted and deposit of Rs.

50,000/- was also taken, and a child was born, but the condition of

mother deteriorated and she died at 10:00 PM. It was further

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.496 of 2021 dt.26-08-2021

3/5

alleged that on inquiry it had come to light that the said Janch

Ghar had no qualified doctor, and the aforesaid co-accused

knowing that the informant belonged to Harijan community, had

deliberately got the operation conducted by a quack and in the

process, his sister-in-law had died.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

land on which the said Maa Ahilya Janch Ghar is built belongs to

the wife of the appellant and except for this, the appellant or his

wife are not even remotely connected to the said Janch Ghar. It

was submitted that he was not even named in the FIR, but later the

police has implicated him just because he was the husband of the

owner of the land on which the Janch Ghar is constructed.

Learned counsel submitted that the two named co-accused Ranju

Devi and Panchali Devi have been granted anticipatory bail by a

co-ordinate Bench by order dated 09.04.2021 passed in Cr. Appeal

(SJ) No. 1871 of 2020. It was submitted that the appellant has no

other criminal antecedent.

7. Learned APP submitted that the wife of the brother of

the informant had died in Janch Ghar built on the land belonging

to the wife of the appellant. However, it was not controverted that

there is no allegation with regard to the appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top