Patna High Court
K. K. Gupta @ Krishna Kumar Gupta @ Krishna Kanu @ Krishna Gupta @ Krishna Kumar KanuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage as the allegations constitute a serious offence of murder and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent justified denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, K.K. Gupta, sought regular bail in a case (Suryapura PS Case No. 09 of 2025) alleging he performed a surgical operation on a pregnant woman who later died, under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the BNS. The prosecution contended that his alleged negligence caused the death, while the defence argued he is not a qualified doctor but a rural medical practitioner, making the act a murder rather than negligence. The State highlighted a prior criminal antecedent against the petitioner and opposed bail. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, noting the seriousness of the charge and the need for trial completion. The court allowed the petitioner to re‑apply for bail after six months if the trial remains pending and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner accused under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the BNS for the death of a pregnant woman.
- Whether the petitioner’s status as an unqualified medical practitioner influences the nature of the offence and bail eligibility.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 105, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- medical negligence
- unqualified medical practitioner
- criminal antecedent
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82859 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas
======================================================
K. K. Gupta @ Krishna Kumar Gupta @ Krishna Kanu @ Krishna Gupta @
Krishna Kumar Kanu S/O Late Mahendra Kanu R/O Village - Kochas, Ward
No.- 12, Old Bazar, P.S- Kochas, Distt.- Rohtas. Present add.- Vil.-
Nawanagar, P.S- Nawanagar,Dist- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rang Nath Dwiwedi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 instituted
for the offence under Sections 105 and 3(5) of BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the wife of the
informant who was pregnant, was admitted in Samarpan
Hospital where this petitioner was a doctor and that due to his
negligence, she died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely
been implicated in this case. Moreover, he is languishing in
judicial custody since 20.03.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82859 of 2025(5) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
5. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner is not a qualified doctor rather
he is rural medical practitioner. The petitioner is not a doctor
and he has performed a surgery on the person of the deceased
which is also apparent from the postmortem report. The doctors
conducting the postmortem have found stitched wound found
below umbilical region, total seven stitches found, paper tape
found on both lateral (right and left) side of lower abdomen. The
allegation against this petitioner is that he has conducted
operation on the person of the deceased and from postmortem
report also, the allegation is substantiated and as the petitioner is
not a doctor, it is not a case of negligence rather it is clear cut
case of murder.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has
submitted that petitioner is also having criminal antecedent of
one case.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the facts and cirumstances of this case as stated
above, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail
at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
8. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82859 of 2025(5) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
9. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same within the period as stated above.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…