Allowed

Raj Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Jan 2025CR. MISC./55970/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by an ultrasound centre operator booked under PC & PNDT Act after inspections found centres non-compliant. Noting the licence was already suspended and clean antecedents, the High Court granted anticipatory bail with standard Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; to be enlarged on Rs. 10,000 bail-bond with two sureties if arrested/surrendered within eight weeks, subject to S.438(2) CrPC conditions.

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55970 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2023 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Jehanabad

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Raj Kumar Gupta Son of Late Ram Birch Saw @ Late Ram Briksh Sah Resident of Mohalla - Sipah, P.O. and P.S.- Arwal, District - Arwal.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Awnish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 17-01-2025

¶10

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and learned

¶11

A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 23, 25 and 26 of the Per-Conception and Per-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act.

¶13

As per prosecution case, informant had received a letter from Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Arwal, vide letter no. 851 dated 06.07.2023, wherein he had submitted an inquiry report regarding running of ultra sound centres at different places in the district of Arwal by the F.I.R. named accused persons including petitioner without following the rules and regulations of the PC & PNDT Act. It is further alleged that

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55970 of 2024(3) dt.17-01-2025 2/3

¶15

on the date of inspection, no doctors were found at the ultra sound centres including the centre of petitioner and as such, the Civil Surgeon suspended the licenses of all ultrasound centres and asked for show cause reply from the concerned proprietors of ultrasound centres.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is having an ultrasound centre at Arwal and he has already filed an application before the District Magistrate for change of name of Dr. Sunil Kumar Rai in place of Dr. Rajat Kumar, as Dr. Rajat Kumar has already left the job in the ultrasound centre of petitioner, but till date, approval was not granted and during the period of inspection, not a single ultrasound was conducted, but still the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of surmises. He further submits that some of the similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 48303 of 2024. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

¶17

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner.

¶18

However, considering the fact that licence of petitioner has already been suspended and he has got clean

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55970 of 2024(3) dt.17-01-2025 3/3

¶20

antecedents, his prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.

¶21

Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within

¶22

a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Arwal, in connection with Trial No. 1108 of 2024, arising out of Complaint (Official) Case No. 15 of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶24

anay

¶25

U T

Raj Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Mistri @ Kamlesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Babu @ Ram Bihari Kumar @ Ram Bihari Vs the State of Bihar

Sonu Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar