Sushila Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Sushila Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2026

Bench: Prabhat Kumar Singh

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91740 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2024 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
                                                    District- Jehanabad
                 ======================================================
                 Sushila Devi Wife of Yogendra Pandit R/o- Surhi, P.S.- Shakurabad, District -
                 Jehanabad
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Amit Anand
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Raj Kishor Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   20-01-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Section 24 of the PC & PNDT Act.

3. The prosecution, in short, is that a raid was conducted by BDO, Ghosi under the leadership of the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Jehanabad on 27.09.2024 at about 01:00 PM, wherein it is alleged that the shutter of the room with the banner of "Maa Lakshmi Ultrasound" was down and no proper response was received on the number displayed on the banner and the team found a fresh gallon of water & water was spread on the floor and it was presumed that on apprehension of said raid, the petitioner removed portable ultrasound machine and fled away.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91740 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. From bare perusal of F.I.R., it is apparent that entire F.I.R. is based on presumption, since no ultrasound machine was found on the centre, but fact remains that said ultrasound machine was sent for repairing, since it was not functioning properly, for which, petitioner gave prior intimation to the concerned Civil Surgeon. No case under the provision of PC & PNDT Act is made out on such presumption. Petitioner is lady and claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for State opposes the bail petition.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, 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 C.J.M., Jehanabad in connection with G.O. Case No. 83 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.




                                                      (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay

U      T

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders