Dr Praveen Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32258 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2025 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Dr Praveen Kumar Jha S/o Ram Nath Jha R/o Village- Madanpur Ward No 08, PS- Madanpur, Distt- Araria, at present resides at Advance Orthopedic Maternity Centren Near Patliputra Station, P.S- Rajeev Nagar, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rajeev Nagar P.S. Case No. 378 of 2025 registered under section 106, 318(4), 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS which is pending before the learned A.C.J.M.-II, Patna.
3. The prosecution case, in short, as per the complaint dated 05.06.2025 is that the informant took his wife aged about 32 years to Private Hospital (Orthopedic & Maternity Centre) on 18.05.2025 for medical examination due to swelling and related issues. It is further alleged that the Hospital staff did not prepare any proper medical documents, prescriptions or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32258 of 2026(3) dt.17-07-2026 2/3 diagnostic records. It has also been alleged that the Hospital staff/Dr. behaved negligently, administered anesthesia/injection without the consent of the informant. That incident happened after the anesthesia was used and the condition of the petitioner had worsened. Later on, the petitioner was referred to Paras Hospital.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Doctor and is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The allegation in the FIR is vague without attributing any specific overt act to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a qualified Orthopedic Doctor and he has not performed any gynecological procedure. He further submitted that there is inordinate delay to lodge FIR and making complain which creates doubts and suspicion.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Having heard the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case, that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the entire incident happened in due course of treatment. In view of the above, I am inclined to grant the petitioner benefit of anticipatory bail. Let the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32258 of 2026(3) dt.17-07-2026 3/3 above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court is connection with Complaint Case No. 378 of 2025 of BNS, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Alok Kumar, J) Anand U T