Amrit Kumar Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26156 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2023 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBuxar ====================================================== Amrit Kumar Tiwari S/O Shiv Shankar Tiwari, Proprietor of Aditya Ultrasound, Dumraon, Resident of Village, P.O. and P.S.- Dumraon, District Buxar.

¶3

... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Bakshi SRP Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶4

2 07-05-2024 Heard Mr. Bakshi SRP Sinha, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶5

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 83 (O) of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(3), 29(1), Rule 9 and Rule 17(2) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Rules of 1996 under the Act.

¶6

According to prosecution case, under the direction of Chief Secretary, Bihar, an investigation team lead by Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Dumraon and Block

¶7

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26156 of 2024(2) dt.07-05-2024 2/4

¶8

Development Officer, Dumraon carried out an inspection of all operating ultrasound centres in the District of Buxar, and at the petitioner’s ultrasound centre they found that the doctor was absent as the machine at the centre was not functional and no notice was affixed at the notice board of that centre.

¶9

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that petitioner has received a notice under Section 21 of the PNDT Act, whereby the concerned authority has asked the petitioner why the centre was open when the doctor was not present at the time of inspection and ultrasound machine was out of order from one month but the petitioner has not informed the office of the PNDT, Buxar. Learned senior counsel further submits that after receiving the notice, the petitioner has informed the authority concerned, thereafter, the petitioner has filed a reply stating therein all the facts, but the authority without considering the reply to the notice has filed the present case against the petitioner.

¶10

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶11

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26156 of 2024(2) dt.07-05-2024 3/4

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has already informed the authority concerned regarding why the doctor was not present and which is due to the malfunctioning of the ultrasound machine, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the trial Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Buxar, where the case is pending in connection with Complaint Case No. 83 (O) of 2023 , subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and also the following conditions:

¶13

(i). Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the trial Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the trial Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the trial Court.

¶14

(ii). If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26156 of 2024(2) dt.07-05-2024 4/4

¶16

move for cancellation of bail.

¶17

(iii). And further condition that 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 antecedent, the trial Court shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶18

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶19

Shahnawaz/-

¶20

U T

Amrit Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanhaiya Yadav @ Adarsh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ramdev Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar

Bhogendra Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Sakil Sah @ Shakil Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Singh Vs The State of Bihar