Patna High Court
Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could be granted as the alleged offences did not preclude bail and the imposed conditions were sufficient to ensure the petitioner’s presence.
Summary
Rakesh Kumar applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case alleging that he operated an ultrasound diagnostic centre without a license, violating sections of the Bihar Nursing Service Act and the Clinical Establishment Act. He claimed the allegations were false, stemming from an inspector's illegal demand, and asserted a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court considered the submissions and, applying Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, directed that anticipatory bail be granted with a bail bond and specific conditions, including sureties and personal appearance. The order emphasized that the bail conditions were not to delay verification of antecedents and that the observations would not affect the trial. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the allegations of running an unlicensed ultrasound centre justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Clinical Establishment Act — s. 30(3)(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- Clinical Establishment Act
- ultrasound centre
- licensing
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55588 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2025 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar S/o Rambabu Sah R/o village - Nawahi, P. S - Sursand,
District - Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Devendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sursand P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),
318(4), 271, 272, 125, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections
30(3)(2) of the Clinical Establishment Act.
3. As per the F.I.R., the allegation against the
petitioner is that he was running Ultrasound Diagnostic Centre
in the name of Shubh Laxmi Ultrasound which was initially
sealed by the Inquiry Committee however, the same was being
again run by the petitioner without any license.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no illegal
activity was found to have been committed at the Ultrasound
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55588 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
Centre. It has further been submitted that it was on account of
the demand being made by the Inspector, which the petitioner
could not fulfill, the present false and concocted case has been
lodged against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that
the petitioner has not been running the Centre and only because
he had not agreed to the illegal demands of the Inspector that he
has falsely been implicated. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released
on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on
furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding
Section 482(2) of BNSS as well as subject to the following
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55588 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial
and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner
will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court
shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…