Chandra Prakash Gupta @ Bablu vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4783 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 97 of 2021
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2020 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur
 ======================================================

Chandra Prakash Gupta @ Bablu, aged about 50 years, Sex-Male, Son of Jagdish Gupta, Resident of village- Shahpur, Police Station- Shahpur, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24-09-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned counsel for

the petitioner; Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State and Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, learned counsel for the

informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Shahpur PS Case No. 210 of 2020 dated 04.07.2020, instituted

under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner, who is the

owner of a medicine shop, is that when the informant went to his

shop with his nephew who was ill, he had administered an Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.97 of 2021 dt.24-09-2021

injection due to which his condition deteriorated and despite

him having been taken to the Referral Hospital, from where he

was asked to go to a better hospital and on the way, he died. Thus,

it is alleged that due to administration of wrong medicine, the

death had occurred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he

is running a medicine shop from the year 2004 and there has

been no complain and the present allegation is false as no such

act has been committed by him. It was submitted that later the

informant himself has filed compromise petition before the

Court below stating that due to him not being in proper state of

mind, the name of the petitioner has been taken and that he has

no grievance against him. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioner has no reason or motive to commit any crime, that too,

of such a serious nature of taking the life of a young boy when

he sells medicine for easing the illness and pain of

others. It was further submitted that during investigation,

witnesses have stated with regard to the petitioner being

innocent.

6. Earlier, the Court had asked learned APP to obtain the

up-to-date legible photo copy of the entire case diary

of Shahpur PS Case No. 210 of 2020, from the Superintendent Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.97 of 2021 dt.24-09-2021

of Police, Bhojpur along with the postmortem report. Learned

APP submitted that the same has been received.

7. Learned counsel submitted that there cannot be any

reason or motive for the petitioner to commit the crime as he runs

a medicine shop i.e., his livelihood and also that there was no

enmity or mens rea or even any reason to have commited the

crime. In fact, it was submitted that when the condition of the

nephew of the informant did not improve, it has been stated in the

FIR that it was the petitioner who arranged for sending him to a

Health Centre.

8. Learned APP submitted that the postmortem report

does not disclose anything. However, it was submitted that as per

the allegation, the petitioner had administered a wrong injection.

9. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that

because of some misconception and non-recognition of the

petitioner, his name was taken in the FIR but he is not aggrieved

and does not hold the petitioner responsible for the death of his

nephew and that is why he has filed a compromise petition in the

Court below.

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as

there does not appear to be any reason for the petitioner to commit Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.97 of 2021 dt.24-09-2021

the crime being only the proprietor of a medicine shop and later

on, the informant himself filing a compromise petition before the

Court stating that due to misconception and being told by

somebody present there, he had named the petitioner and alleged

certain things against him but having realized that he has no role

in the death of his nephew, he has filed compromise petition,

which has been supported by learned counsel for the informant,

the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

11. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner

be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-

(twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1 st,

Bhojpur, Arrah in Shahpur PS Case No. 210 of 2020, subject to

the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, and further, (i) that one of

the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that

the petitioner shall co-operate with the Court and

police/prosecution. Failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation

of his bail bonds.

12. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioner, to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.97 of 2021 dt.24-09-2021

notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action

on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

13. The petition stands disposed of in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T