Pushpa Kumari @ Pushpa Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23092 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Pushpa Kumari @ Pushpa Devi W/o Rajendra Singh R/o Village- Barun, PSSuryapura, Distt- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rang Nath Dwiwedi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad. 2.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and in sum and substance, the informant alleges that petitioner is a nurse and is alleged to have operated the wife of the informant, who was pregnant, along with two other named accused in the FIR, and on account of operation conducted, both mother and child died. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23092 of 2025(2) dt.01-05-2025 2/3 informant. It is further submitted that petitioner is not a nurse rather is a sweeper and she was appointed in the hospital on contractual basis for sweeping and mopping. It is also submitted that co-accused, Madhuri Devi had approached this court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 20773 of 2025 and the same was allowed by an order dated 28-4-2025 by a learned Coordinate Bench, as such claiming parity the learned counsel seeks anticipatory bail.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State, Shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that it is the case registered under Section 304 IPC read with other sections. It is next submitted that no doubt Madhuri has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by a learned Coordinate Bench, but then the allegation against Madhuri in the FIR, is that she had merely asked the informant to take his wife to the concerned clinic where the occurrence took place and she was not involved in the operation. It is further submitted that informant specifically alleges that this petitioner along with two others operated his wife leading to death of the child and the mother both. It is also submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that why a husband would falsely try to implicate someone who was not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23092 of 2025(2) dt.01-05-2025 3/3 involved in the occurrence of the death of his wife and the child. 6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is in complete agreement with the submission made by learned APP, as such, is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T