Dr. Urmila Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29112 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -129 Year- 2016 Thana -BIHARSHARIF District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== DR. URMILA SINGH WIFE OF SATYENDRA PRASAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/MOHALLA- PURANI JAIL P.S. BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA.

.... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Prasad Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Surendra Prasad Singh. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 27-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Petitioner is a doctor who along with others in deceitful manner succeeded in getting the amount without operating the concerned patients under different schemes. From the order impugned, it is evident that the petitioner had already deposited the amount but, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware how much amount petitioner had procured and how much amount has been deposited. The learned lower court is directed to have proper verification on that very score and in case, some amount is still found due at the end of petitioner and further, the remaining amount, if any, is paid at the instance of petitioner, or the alleged amount is found already deposited then in that event, petitioner Dr. Urmila Singh will be released on bail released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29112 of 2016 (2) dt.27-07-2016 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Bihar P.S. Case No.129 of 2016 with an undertaking that henceforth she will not indulge herself in such kind of activity failing which not only the privilege of bail will be withdrawn rather the prosecution will be at liberty to move before the Medical Council for cancellation of license having in favour of petitioner. However, it is made clear that the deposit of amount will not be considered prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, during course of trial. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) PN/- U T