Compromise Petition could be treated as the main proof for granting Bail: High Court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 921 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 210 Year 2020 Thana SAHPUR District Bhojpur Chandra Prakash Gupta @ Bablu aged about 50 years Sex Male Son of Jagdish Gupta Resident of village Shahpur Police Station Shahpur District Bhojpur The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant Mr. Choubey Jawahar Advocate Ms. Suman Kumari Singh APP Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24 09 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Choubey Jawahar learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Suman Kumari Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary learned counsel for the 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Shahpur PS Case No. 2120 dated 04.07.2020 instituted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The allegation against the petitioner who is the owner of a medicine shop is that when the informant went to his shop with his nephew who was ill he had administered an Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.921 dt.24 09 2021 injection due to which his condition deteriorated and despite him having been taken to the Referral Hospital from where he was asked to go to a better hospital and on the way he died. Thus it is alleged that due to administration of wrong medicine the death had occurred 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is running a medicine shop from the year 2004 and there has been no complain and the present allegation is false as no such act has been committed by him. It was submitted that later the informant himself has filed compromise petition before the Court below stating that due to him not being in proper state of mind the name of the petitioner has been taken and that he has no grievance against him. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no reason or motive to commit any crime that too of such a serious nature of taking the life of a young boy when he sells medicine for easing the illness and pain of others. It was further submitted that during investigation witnesses have stated with regard to the petitioner being 6. Earlier the Court had asked learned APP to obtain the up to date legible photo copy of the entire case diary of Shahpur PS Case No. 2120 from the Superintendent Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.921 dt.24 09 2021 of Police Bhojpur along with the postmortem report. Learned APP submitted that the same has been received 7. Learned counsel submitted that there cannot be any reason or motive for the petitioner to commit the crime as he runs a medicine shop i.e. his livelihood and also that there was no enmity or mens rea or even any reason to have commited the crime. In fact it was submitted that when the condition of the nephew of the informant did not improve it has been stated in the FIR that it was the petitioner who arranged for sending him to a 8. Learned APP submitted that the postmortem report does not disclose anything. However it was submitted that as per the allegation the petitioner had administered a wrong injection 9. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that because of some misconception and non recognition of the petitioner his name was taken in the FIR but he is not aggrieved and does not hold the petitioner responsible for the death of his nephew and that is why he has filed a compromise petition in the 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as there does not appear to be any reason for the petitioner to commit Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.921 dt.24 09 2021 the crime being only the proprietor of a medicine shop and later on the informant himself filing a compromise petition before the Court stating that due to misconception and being told by somebody present there he had named the petitioner and alleged certain things against him but having realized that he has no role in the death of his nephew he has filed compromise petition which has been supported by learned counsel for the informant the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail 11. Accordingly 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. 2120 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner andthat the petitioner shall co operate with the Court and police prosecution. Failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds 12. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioner to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.921 dt.24 09 2021 notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner 13. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: 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
 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
 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
 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.”