Patna High Court
Dr. Sudhir KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as there was no material evidence of negligence and the petitioner possessed clean antecedents.
Summary
Dr. Sudhir Kumar, a medical officer at Motipur Primary Health Centre, was accused of causing the death of a patient during a family‑planning operation, invoking Sections 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting that he performed the surgery with a valid licence, followed standard procedures, and that the patient’s death was due to natural complications, not negligence. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. The Court examined the lack of any material evidence showing negligence or breach of duty and noted the petitioner’s clean antecedents. Consequently, the Court allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail, directing that bail be granted upon furnishing a bond and sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a medical officer charged with culpable homicide under IPC Sections 304 and 34.
- Whether the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence of negligence to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the nature of the accusation warrants the exercise of the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- medical negligence
- IPC 304
- IPC 34
- CrPC Section 482
- bail jurisprudence
- health officer liability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73192 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2020 Thana- MOTIPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Dr. Sudhir Kumar S/O Late Saryug Prasad R/O 31 MIG Colony, Kankarbag,
Sampatchak, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Nilima Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that wife of
informant, namely Anita Devi, had gone for family planning
operation before the Motipur Primary Health Center on
14.09.2020 and this petitioner conducted the operation and one
Puja Kumari took care of wife of informant. It is alleged that
due to medical negligence of this petitioner and co-accused Puja
Kumari, wife of informant died.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. At the relevant time, petitioner, having
valid license and educational qualification, was posted as Health
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73192 of 2025(3) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
Officer in the Motipur Primary Health Centre and conducted the
operation as per standard medical procedures. As a matter of
fact, after some time of the operation, the health condition of
wife of information deteriorated and thereafter, she was carried
to another hospital in an ambulance and on the way, she died
and only with a view to extort money from the petitioner, this
false and concocted case has been lodged. There is no evidence
on record to show that there was any negligence on the part of
this petitioner. Simple because the patient did not respond
favourably or surgery failed, petitioner cannot be held
responsible. There is no evidence to establish that petitioner
failed to exercise the skill possessed by him while discharging
the duty. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and clean
antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73192 of 2025(3) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Muzaffarpur in connection with Motipur P.S. Case No. 225 of
2020, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…