Raju Kumar Verma Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mayank Bilochan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satyendra Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 15-07-2026

¶13

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 303/2025 registered on 09.10.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 23 of the Pr-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

¶16

As per the prosecution, during an inspection, the informant, who is the I/c Medical Officer, found that the petitioner was running an ultrasound centre without a valid registration certificate. It was also found that the centre did not possess the requisite Pollution Control Certificate, Fire Safety Certificate, or Biomedical Waste Management Certificate. During the inspection, the persons present at the centre informed

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25508 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026 2/3

¶18

the inspecting team that the petitioner used to operate the ultrasound centre and secretly conduct prenatal sex determination tests.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the operator of the said ultrasound centre, nor is he a doctor or an ultrasound technician. Rather, he was merely working as a daily-wage employee at the centre. It is contended that, apart from mere suspicion, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any prenatal sex determination test was being conducted at the alleged centre. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged solely on the basis of the statements of Rubi Kumari and Tulsi Kumari. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶20

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that, during the inspection, the In-charge Medical Officer found that the petitioner was running an ultrasound centre without a valid registration certificate and was conducting prenatal sex determination tests, which are prohibited under law and have serious adverse consequences on the male-female ratio in society.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25508 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026 3/3

¶22

Considering the allegations that the petitioner was found running an ultrasound centre without a valid registration certificate and was conducting prenatal sex determination tests, which are prohibited under law, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 303 of 2025, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Nawada, is hereby rejected.

¶23

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, the Trial Court shall consider and pass an order on his surrendercum-bail application on the same day, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the rejection of the petitioner’s anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶24

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶25

Ashwini/Manshi

Raju Kumar Verma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Kumar Verma 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

Alok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ganga Vishnu Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Tanik Mandal @ Tanik Lal Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Choudhary @ Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajnayak Raman @ Golu Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar