Patna High Court
Dr. Shyama Kumari @ Shyama KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
In the absence of any specific caste‑based allegation, the appellant is entitled to pre‑arrest bail and the trial court's order denying bail is set aside.
Summary
Dr. Shyama Kumari, a medical practitioner, was charged with negligence and alleged misbehaviour during a uterine operation, leading to a complaint under several IPC provisions and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. She appealed the trial court's refusal to grant pre‑arrest bail, invoking Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined the FIR and found no allegation that she used the complainant's caste name nor any ingredient of Sections 3(1)(v) or 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the court held that the trial court's order denying bail was untenable, quashed it, and directed her release on pre‑arrest bail subject to standard conditions. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations against Dr. Shyama Kumari constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the pre‑arrest bail application under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 125, 3(5), 352
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14(A)(2), 18, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(v)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- SC/ST Act
- medical negligence
- caste discrimination
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4069 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2025 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Dr. Shyama Kumari @ Shyama Kumari W/O Dr. Randhir Kumar R/O-
Loknathpur Ganj, P.S.- Dalsingh Sarai, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sonu Kumar Paswan S/O Suresh Paswan R/O Dhepura, ward 28, P.S.-
Dalsingh Sarai, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 16-04-2026 Heard Mrs. Priyanka Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant; Mr. Mahendra Pratap,
learned counsel for OP No.2 and Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, learned
Spl. PP for the State.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal
under Section 14(A) (2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the rejection of
prayer for pre-arrest bail, vide order dated 28.08.2025 passed by
the learned Special Judge- SC/ST Act, Samastipur in ABP
No.1298 of 2025 arising out of Dalsingh Sarai P.S. Case No.168
of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 125, 109(1),
352, 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(r) of SC/ST
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4069 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
Act.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
appellant, who is a doctor, is accused of providing negligent and
improper treatment during a uterine operation at Sakshi
Hospital, as a result of which the informant’s wife developed
serious complications and had to be referred to AIIMS, Delhi. It
is further alleged that the doctors had misbehaved with the
informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been
submitted in the present case. She further submitted that there is
no ingredients of Section 109(1) of the BNS. The appellant is a
registered and reputed medical practitioner and she had properly
treated the wife of the informant, who was discharged in healthy
condition on 05.10.2024. After her discharge, the informant and
his brother had started demanding four lakh rupees and upon
refusal, they had falsely instituted the present case with malafide
intention. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant
had not taken caste name of the informant in public view and no
offence under the provision of SC/ST Act is made out against
her. Other co-accused, namely, Dr. Randhir Kumar has already
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4069 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2026
passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 4501 of 2025. In absence of
any specific allegation, appellant seeks to be released on pre-
arrest bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.
No. 2 and learned Spl. P.P. have vehemently opposed the prayer
for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellant.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, from bare perusal of the FIR, it appears
that no caste name has been taken by the appellant and in
absence of ingredients of Sections 3(i)(v) and 3(i)(r) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act and the allegation alleged against the
appellant being general and omnibus bar of Section 18 of SC/ST
Act will not come in way. Other co-accused, namely, Dr.
Randhir Kumar has already been released on bail by this Court
vide order dated 12.02.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.
4501 of 2025. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated
28.08.2025 is quashed and set-aside.
7. In absence of specific allegation against the
appellant, the learned Trial Court is directed to release the
appellant, above named, on pre-arrest bail, in the event of her
arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4069 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
period of four weeks, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is
pending in connection with ABP No.1298 of 2025 arising out of
Dalsingh Sarai P.S. Case No.168 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS.
8. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…