Dr. Isteyaque Ahmad @ Md. Isteyaque Ahmad @ Dr. Isteyaque Ahmad Khan @ Dr. I.A. Khan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15253 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -364 Year- 2013 Thana -PUPRI District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Dr. Isteyaque Ahmad @ Md. Isteyaque Ahmad @ Dr. Isteyaque Ahmad Khan @ Dr. I.A. Khan, son of Md. Atik Ahmad, resident of Village - Chorar (Rudauli), P.S. Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. R.B. Roy Raman, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Pupri P.S. Case No. 364/13 registered under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that her husband was operated by the petitioner in A.B. Hospital on 13.11.2013. The husband of the informant was discharged on 17.11.2013. When the condition of the husband of the informant was deteriorating, he was again admitted in the hospital on 26.11.2013 and the petitioner operated him in another side of his abdomen but the husband of the informant died on 02.12.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never operated the husband of the informant. It is submitted that on the date of operation of the husband of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15253 of 2016 (3) dt.30-06-2016 2/2 informant, the petitioner was not present in the hospital and he had gone to Village Puran Tola in the district of West Champaran to look after his ailing father-in-law, but it appears that the informant and other witnesses have very categorically stated that it was the petitioner who operated the husband of the informant and second time also the petitioner himself operated the husband of the informant and consequently the husband of the informant died. The petitioner has got no degree of surgery and he is not a qualified surgeon to operate any patient.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in Pupri P.S. Case No. 364/2013, G.R. No. 1216/2013. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T