Blog

Petitioner was granted bail alleged of giving the wrong medicinal injection to the informant’s nephew. The informant later filed a compromise petition to take back the petition filed previously. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter of Chandra Prakash Gupta[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 97 of 2021].

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was arrested in connection with a case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner administered an injection to the informant’s nephew making the condition deteriorated. He on the way died while being taken to another hospital. It was alleged that due to the wrong medicinal injection, the death occurred. It was submitted by the informant later that he wasn’t in a proper mental state and has no grievance against the petitioner. The Petitioner said he had no ill intentions to take the life of the innocent boy while his work is of saving the patients from illness and easing their pain. Witnesses also submitted that the petitioner was innocent. 

The Learned Counsel submitted that petitioner had no mens rea or any reason to commit such a crime. It was the petitioner who had arranged to send the informant’s nephew to hospital after seeing his bad health.

Learned Appellant submitted that there has been nothing in the post-mortem report but the petitioner has injected the wrong medicinal injection. The informant said that they had no intention of holding the petitioner responsible for the death and that’s why they later on filed a compromise petition in the court. It was later proved in the court that the informant filed the FIR against the petitioner under the misconception and grief of losing his nephew. To rectify their action they later filed the compromise petition.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,”…in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Bhojpur, Arrah in Shahpur PS Case No. 210 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.”

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish