Patna High Court - Orders
Nibha Sinha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 27 February, 2020
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1111 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2016 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
Nibha Sinha
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary,home Department Govt.
Of Bihar & Anr.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 251 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- Jamui
======================================================
Nibha Sinha
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1111 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prabhat Kumar Verma, A.A.G.-3
(In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 251 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Nasrul Huda Khan Sc-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
5 27-02-2020After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State for some time, what has ultimately transpired is that the matter raises a serious question on the exercise of power by the police authorities in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 117 of 2016.
The allegations against the then Superintendent of Police, Jamui and S.H.O.-cum-Investigating Officer, Jamui of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1111 of 2016(5) dt.27-02-2020 2/5 the case are that they registered the F.I.R. without conducting any preliminary kind of investigation/enquiry in the matter in the allegation of medical negligence against the petitioner who happens to be a qualified Doctor running her clinic at Jamui. Not only that, it is further alleged that the doctor/petitioner was arrested by police giving a complete go-bye to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of such arrests. The basic principles which have been enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. reported in A.I.R. 1994 SC 1349=SCC (1994) 4 261 were not taken care of.
Referring to the arrest memo which has been brought on record, learned counsel for the petitioner has shown prima- facie at this stage as to how in the name of preparation of arrest memo only a half-hearted formality was done, no information was given to any friend or near relative to the petitioner and in fact submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the family members came to know about the arrest of the petitioner and her confinement in police custody after 9 hours of arrest. It is alleged that the lady doctor was arrested and then was humiliated by taking her on a round in the town as if she was a dreaded criminal and the police was entitled for some Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1111 of 2016(5) dt.27-02-2020 3/5 kind of bravery award.
The grievance of the petitioner is also that when she made a representation in this regard to the D.I.G. of Police, Munger Division, Munger vide her letter dated 9th June, 2016 as contained in Annexure '6P' to the writ application, the same proved to be a waste paper and remained gathering dust in the office of the D.I.G. of Police, Munger Division, Munger .
Learned counsel for the State has though defended the action of the police authorities by submitting that because F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner, she had been arrested but on perusal of the records, there appears no material produced on behalf of the respondent authorities that the arrest was made on the basis of any credible information or a reasonable suspicion and further that prior to effecting arrest the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in such matters particularly when it was a case of lady doctor dully qualified and in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically dealt with the expectations and the requirements on the part of the police in dealing with the complaints against a doctor, whether such directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court have been followed. There is also no material to show that pursuant to Annexure '6P' to the writ Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1111 of 2016(5) dt.27-02-2020 4/5 application, the D.I.G. of Police, Munger Division, Munger has conducted any enquiry in the matter and taken a view thereon.
At this stage, learned counsel for the State has prayed for a short adjournment to enable him to seek specific instruction from the office of D.I.G. of Police, Munger Division, Munger on the steps taken in the office of the D.I.G. of Police, Munger Division, Munger after receipt of Annexure '6P' to the writ application whether any enquiry was held pursuant to Annexure '6P' would be a relevant matter to be looked into at this stage and as such learned counsel submits that he may be granted two weeks time to revert to this Court with proper instruction and further affidavit if so required.
While adjourning the matter for another two weeks and directing it to be listed again on 17 th March, 2020 under the same heading maintaining its position, this Court would also take note of the fact that the then Superintendent of Police, Jamui and S.H.O., Jamui have been made party by their respective names and they have been duly served with notices but they have not filed any individual counter affidavit in this case.
Learned counsel for the State submits that he would also inform those authorities in this regard and if so advised Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1111 of 2016(5) dt.27-02-2020 5/5 they may file their separate affidavit as well during this period.
Let both the cases be listed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/-
U