Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28310 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2018 Thana- ALIPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav Son of Chandradeo Prasad Yadav @ Chandradeo Yadav Resident of Village- Narayan Bigha, P.S.- Tekari, DistrictGaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Veer For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 05-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Alipur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2018 registered for the offence under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the allegation in the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have misrepresented himself as a doctor and he along with his brother are said to have operated upon the son of the informant who died.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against petitioner of having operated on the son of the informant is false. Petitioner was working as a helper with Dr. Rajiv Prasad Bhandari. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28310 of 2019(4) dt.05-07-2019 2/2 petitioner is not a doctor and co-accused, Sunil Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27963 of 2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 30.12.2018.

The application for bail is opposed by the learned APP for the State submitting that from perusal of the case diary, which was called for, it transpires that the petitioner, who is a quack has been running this clinic since long and operated upon the son of the informant though he is not a doctor. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and inspite of being a quack, he proceeded to operate upon the son of the informant leading to his death, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

However the petitioner, if so advised my renew his prayer for bail after completion one year custody. (Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U T