Bhim Viswakarma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25002 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-536 Year-2018 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== BHIM VISWAKARMA Son of Shri Sahdeo Vishwakarma Resident of Village- Gapha Khurd, P.S.- Bodh- Gaya, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 23-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

Petitioner in the present case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Bodh-Gaya P.S. Case No.536 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.09.2018 at 4.00 pm the daughter of the informant fell ill then the informant consulted with one village private doctor namely Dr. Bhim Vishwakarma (petitioner) for treatment of his daughter who was suffering from fever. It is further alleged that during the course of treatment the daughter of the informant became faint and died. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, he is not a doctor and does not practice medicines. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25002 of 2019(3) dt.23-07-2019 2/2 is concocted and he has been falsely implicated in this case because of certain disputes during the last panchayat election between the informant and the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a duly qualified doctor, but he had administered medicine to the daughter of the informant. It is further submitted that in course of investigation, it has been revealed by some of the co-villagers that the petitioner was practicing as a doctor in the village.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case where some materials have come showing that the petitioner despite being not qualified to practice as a doctor was administering the medicine to the villagers, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This application is dismissed.

In case the petitioner surrenders in the court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

arvind/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) U T