Dismissed¶21

Chintu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Feb 2025CR. MISC./75139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: anticipatory bail rejected; Patna High Court; CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75139 of 2024; decided 11-02-2025; Justice S. B. Pd. Singh; Chintu Kumar v. The State of Bihar; Fathua/Fatua P.S. Case No. 775 of 2023; IPC Sections 336, 420, 304/34; Maa Nursing and Maternity Home; death of mother and newborn; PPH haemorrhage and shock; petitioner alleged partner and 'so called doctor'; co-accused Dhananjay Singh owner; investigation ongoing; direction to surrender before court below; future regular bail to be considered without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner's involvement in the incident, and that the investigation is still going on, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. ¶21

Chintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Fathua P.S. Case No. 775 of 2023 (Sections 336, 420, 304/34 IPC), should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court below; any subsequent prayer for regular bail shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by this Court's order.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused — Patna High Court, CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75139 of 2024, decided 11-02-2025 (S. B. Pd. Singh, J.). Chintu Kumar, apprehending arrest in Fathua P.S. Case No. 775 of 2023 instituted under Sections 336, 420, 304/34 IPC, sought pre-arrest bail. Prosecution narrative: on 8 October 2023 the informant admitted his sister to 'Maa Nursing and Maternity Home', Fathua, for child delivery; staff allegedly demanded money (including an additional Rs. 50,000/-), and when the informant returned at 10:30 PM the staff had fled, leaving his sister and the newborn dead; the postmortem (case diary para 19) attributed death to haemorrhage and shock due to PPH. Though not named initially, the petitioner's name transpired during investigation: case diary para 2 records him as one of the partners (with two others) who demanded further money for the operation, and para 15 as working as a 'so called doctor' in the nursing home, co-accused Dhananjay Singh being its owner. Holding that, given the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's involvement, his role could not be overlooked while the investigation was ongoing, the Court rejected the anticipatory-bail prayer and directed the petitioner to surrender before the learned court below, making clear that any future regular-bail application there is to be considered without prejudice to this order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75139 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-775 Year-2023 Thana- FATUA District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Chintu Kumar Son of Sri Sunil Singh Resident of Village - Sudiha, Parsa, P.S. - Fathwa, District - Patna

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhiraj Sagar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 11-02-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Fathua P.S. Case no. 775 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 336, 420, 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 8^th October, 2023, the informant admitted his sister to ‘Maa Nursing and Maternity Home’ in Fathua for child delivery. At the time of admission, four male and one female staff members were present. The staff initially demanded Rs. 1.5

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75139 of 2024(3) dt.11-02-2025 2/3

¶16

lakh but later insisted on consulting a senior doctor and demanded an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/. The informant paid the initial requested amount. It is further alleged that when the informant returned to the nursing home at 10:30 PM, he found all the staff members had fled and he found his sister and newborn child dead on the bed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. It is further submitted that petitioner is a non-medical person and not a staff or member of the said nursing home. He has not been named initially in the case rather his named transpired during investigation of the case.

¶18

Learned APP appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that from perusal of case diary, it appears that involvement of petitioner in the present case has surfaced in para 2, in which the re-statement of informant has been recorded. In his statement, he has specifically stated that petitioner was one of the partners along with other two partners and he demanded further amount for the operation. In paragraph 15 of the case diary, witnesses has stated that petitioner was

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75139 of 2024(3) dt.11-02-2025 3/3

¶20

working as so called doctor in the said nursing home, where the victim has died and co-accused Dhananjay Singh was owner of the said nursing home. As per postmortem report (para 19 of the case diary), it is evident that cause of death was due to ‘ haemorrahage and shock due to PPH’.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the gravity of offence and involvement of petitioner in the aforementioned incident, at present his role cannot be overlooked from the alleged offence. The investigation is still going on in this case. This court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

¶22

The petitioner is directed to surrender before

¶23

learned court below and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the court below, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

¶24

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

¶25

Nirajkrs/-

¶26

U T

Chintu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karn Kumar Raju @ Raja Yadav @ Raja Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shabir @ Tipu Vs The State of Bihar

Amarjeet Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Deepak Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Yadav Vs The State of Bihar