Dr. Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2730 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-347 Year-2018 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== Dr. Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh S/o Virchandra Singh @ Virchanra Patel Resident of Village- Usufpur, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali. ... ... Appellant.

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Usha Kumari 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 11-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 22.05.2019 passed by learned 1stAdditional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 347 of 2018 registered under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (r) (s), 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Appellant is said to have operated the uterus of the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2730 of 2019(3) dt.11-09-2019 2/3 mother of the informant at his private clinic taking Rs.10,000.00 as fee but his mother succumbed to the aforesaid operation and on quizzing the appellant about the death of his mother he slated him in the name of caste and left his clinic. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no concern with the aforesaid occurrence. He has been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motive. He had not operated the deceased rather the deceased was operated by some other doctor. No incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. Subsequently, on recognizing the true state of affair, the informant has given a petition before the learned C.J.M.

, Vaishali regarding non-complicity of the appellant in the occurrence. Moreover, the parties to the case have compromised the matter. Appellant has been languishing in custody since 10.05.2019. Hence, appellant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Spl. PP for the State opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant does not happen to be surgeon and he operated the mother of the informant, resultantly she died and several instrument meant for operation has been seized from the clinic of the appellant.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2730 of 2019(3) dt.11-09-2019 3/3 the occurrence. Independent witness Chinta Devi in para-9 of the case diary has stated that despite protest made by her the appellant carried out the operation feigning that the operation will be conducted by some other doctor of Patna. Hence, the appellant does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) Trivedi/- U T