Patna High Court
Lalan Prasad @ Dr. LalanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, including payment of Rs.1,00,000 to the informant.
Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Lalan Prasad, a registered medical practitioner, was implicated in an FIR (Case No. 98 of 2025) under Section 105 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 after the wife of the informant, Mahesh Yadav, died following treatment by the petitioner. The informant alleged negligence, but both parties later reached a compromise, with the petitioner offering Rs.1,00,000 to the informant. The prosecution presented a post‑mortem report indicating that viscera were preserved for chemical analysis, and the investigation was still ongoing. The court noted the petitioner’s clean record, the unresolved cause of death, and the parties’ settlement, and therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to a payment of Rs.1,00,000 to the informant and standard bail conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The bail order required a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 105 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 in view of the compromise between the parties and the pending investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 105
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- medical negligence
- Section 105
- compromise
- post‑mortem
- Cr.P.C. Section 438
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74995 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Lalan Prasad @ Dr. Lalan S/o Late Ram Das Prasad R/o Village - Guriya
(Raushanganj), P.S - Raushanganj, District - Gaya, State - Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard Mr.Ranjeet Tiwary, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the informant as also Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Raushanganj P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025 instituted under
Section 105 of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 lodged on
24.06.2025 by the informant, Mahesh Yadav.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that his wife was ill, taken to the petitioner but after he gave
some medicine, her condition deteriorated, the petitioner took
her on his own car for better treatment to Sub-Divisional
Hospital, Sherghati but she died as declared by the hospital. On
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74995 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
several occasions, he wife was cured by the petitioner. This
time, she died and as such the license of the petitioner be
enquired into.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is
registered with the RMP council after satisfying the said
council, though at times on personal request, the medicines were
given to the lady, on that particular day, no such medicine was
given. When he came to know that she is ill, in his own car,
took her to the hospital and after the death now he has been
implicated. The informant, later realizing the fact that the
petitioner has no role in the matter, both parties have come to
the compromise and as a goodwill gesture, the petitioner himself
has offered Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the informant by way of
Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State Bank of
India.
5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that as
his wife died, under apprehension, the FIR has been lodged but
now they have come to terms.
6. Learned APP has taken this Court to the case diary
to show that the post mortem report records that the viscera has
been preserved for chemical analysis from the FSL.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74995 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
parties as also the petitioner do not have criminal antecedent,
the cause of death has still not been ascertained, investigation is
on, an undertaking has been given that the petitioner shall be
cooperating in the said investigation, this Court has also taken
note of the development between the parties, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege
of anticipatory bail subject to the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-
which is to be paid to the informant by way of Demand Draft
issued by the local branch of the State Bank of India.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each in connection with Raushanganj P.S. Case
No. 98 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Sherghati, Gaya subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74995 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…