Dr. Om Prakash @ Om Prakash vs The State Of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53459 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-416 Year-2009 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Dr. Om Prakash @ Om Prakash, S/o Vidhya Sagar Arya @ vidhya Sagar Ram
Arya, Sadar Hospital, Motihari, R/o Mohalla – Chandmari, P.S. - Town
Motihari, District – East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Laliteshwar Pandey, Police Sub-Inspector, Nagar Thana Motihari, P.O. -
Motihari, P.S. - Motihari Town, Dist. - East Champaran at Motihari.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Adv.
Mrs. Urmila Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 03-09-2026
The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing
the order dated 23.05.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with
Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 416/2009 whereby finding prima
facie case under sections 224, 225, 120(B) of the Indian Penal
Code, he has issued process against the petitioner for
appearance to face trial.
2. In nutshell the prosecution case is that on
16.12.2009 at about 06:15am, informant being a police officer
of Motihari Town P.S. got information that one under-trial
prisoner, Manjelal Sahni, who had been shifted to Motihari
Sadar Hospital from Motihari jail for better treatment, has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53459 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026
2/10
somehow escaped from police custody from the general ward of
the hospital where his treatment was going on. It is also alleged
that in course of his treatment at Sadar Hospital, five constables
were deputed to keep watch over him, but on the pretext of
going to toilet, the said Manjelal Sahni, an accused, fled away.
The guards on duty could not keep watch over them.
The informant also alleges that alongwith the
aforesaid accused undergoing treatment at Sadar Hospital, some
members of his family were also present there. The informant
alleges that from perusal of the treatment chart of the accused, it
was evident that there was no case for his admission in the
hospital for such minor illness, but the accused got himself
admitted in the hospital for treatment only for the purpose of
escaping, for which the petitioner being attending doctor and
other employees of the hospital are equally responsible.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, an FIR as
Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 416/2009 dated 16.12.2009 was
registered under sections 224, 225 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code implicating Manjelel Sahni, the accused who fled
away alongwith his family members.
4. Having registered the case, police commenced
investigation and after conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53459 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026
3/10
was submitted, whereafter vide order dated 23.05.2013, learned
A.C.J.M.-V, Motihari, East Champaran took cognizance of
offences under Section 224, 225, 120B of the Indian Penal Code
and issued processes against the petitioner and one Ramesh
Kumar Sinha on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet
submitted against them.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner being a Government doctor,
was posted at the relevant time in Sadar Hospital, Motihari
where the under-trial prisoner, namely Manjelal Sahni, was
admitted for treatment on the reference being made by the jail
doctor through jail Superintendent, which was duly
recommended by Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Motihari for
better treatment. It is contended that petitioner being doctor has
been discharging his duty as per his shifts in different wards of
the Sadar Hospital.
6. Learned counsel points out that for keeping close
watch over the under-trial prisoner, who was admitted in the
Sadar Hospital for better treatment, five armed police constables
were deputed for safety and security, but for the laches
committed by those duty police constables, who did not
discharged their duties properly, the petitioner being doctor, has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53459 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026
4/10
been made a scape-goat.
7. The petitioner who was the attending doctor, has no
role to play, at all, in any manner with the escape of the under-
trial prisoner. From the FIR itself it is evident that with the
under-trial prisoner, there were five police constables and the
informant has also found that many family members of the
under-trial prisoner were also present in the hospital, on the day
when he fled away through window of the toilet. Learned
counsel pointing out the objectionable conduct of the informant,
who being a police officer, did not implicate the police
constables, who were on duty when the under-trial prisoner fled
away, as all such police constables have not been made an
accused in the aforesaid FIR.
8. In-spite of having recorded a finding in the first
information report that all those police constables prima facie
appear to be guilty in escaping of the prisoner, it is pointed out
that in the course of investigation no material and evidence has
come implicating or connecting the petitioner being doctor of
the hospital in any manner to the alleged crime and specially
with the escape of the under-trial prisoner. At last, he submits
that petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor has been
charge-sheeted in the first charge-sheet, but his name has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53459 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026
5/10
deliberately been included in the supplementary charge-sheet by
the police, without there being absolutely any evidence against
him.
9. From the perusal of the record it appears that notice
was duly served upon the opposite party no. 2, police sub-
inspector, whereafter opposite party no. 2 entered appearance
through learned counsel, whose name appears in the cause list.
However, when the case was called out today, despite repeated
calls, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
10. Mr. Ahmad Ali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioner is not named
in the FIR, but his name has come in course of investigation and
accordingly, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted
against him. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
fairly admits that there was negligence on the part of the police
officer who submitted the written report that he did not make all
those five constables accused in connection with the present
crime, as those constables were primarily responsible for the
safety and security of the under-trial prisoner and for that
purpose they were exclusively deputed in the hospital and in
their presence during duty hours, the under-trial prisoner,
Manjelal Sahni, fled away.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53459 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026
6/10
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also
submits that learned trial Court having perused the case diary
and evidence collected in course of investigation as well as
having perused the supplementary charge-sheet, finding prima
facie case under the sections 224, 225 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code took cognizance of the offences and issued process,
so the petitioner may be relegated to face the trial because his
defence could only be seen and examined by the trial Court.
12. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and perused the record and the case diary.
13. It is a peculiar case where five police constables
were deputed to safeguard the custody of the under-trial prisoner
while he was undergoing treatment at the Sadar Hospital,
Motihari. But, those police constables responsible for safety,
security and keeping watch over the under-trial prisoner, were
not made accused in the present case nor in the charge-sheet or
supplementary charge-sheet. This shows the approach of the
police which discards all settled legal principles and statutory
provisions in this regard when the persons of their department
found involved in any act of crime or found prima facie
responsible for guilty of dereliction in duty.
14. From perusal of the FIR as well as the case diary,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53459 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026
7/10
it is very much evident that the petitioner who being a
Government doctor, was posted at relevant point of time in the
Motihari Sadar Hospital and he also treated the under-trial
prisoners in course of discharge of his official duties. He
examined the patient, he prescribed medicines and he followed-
up his check-up in a routine manner in his rounds of duty while
visiting all the patients in Sadar Hospital, Motihari.
15. He can, by no stretch of imagination be said to be
responsible for aiding in any manner the under-trial prisoner,
Manjelal Sahni, in escaping from police custody. Even in the
first information report no allegation, at all, has been levelled
against him nor has he been made an accused, but the informant
having examined the medical treatment chart of the under-trial
prisoner, raises a suspicion that for a minor illness why the
under-trial prisoner had been admitted in the hospital, and for
such admission he suspects the role of the petitioner being
doctor of the hospital.
16. Any under-trial prisoner who remains in judicial
custody, in case of any illness during such custody, can only be
admitted in the Sadar Hospital of the district for better
treatment, after due recommendation of the jail doctor and
Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, because unless the jail doctor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53459 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026
8/10
made a reference for his better treatment at some other hospital
than the jail hospital, no under-trial prisoner could be shifted
from jail to other hospital for treatment of his/her disease.
17. Thus, for admission of the under-trial prisoner in
the hospital for treatment, petitioner being a Government doctor,
posted in the Sadar Hospital, could not be held accountable or
responsible for his admission in any manner. Being a doctor, the
primary duty of the petitioner is to treat the patient irrespective
of their caste, creed, religion or status as he is no way
concerned, as to whether the person, whom he is treating is a
criminal or a police officer or any common people, his only job
is to provide treatment whosoever comes to him or whosoever is
admitted in the hospital.
18. From perusal of the case diary it is manifestly
evident that in the course of investigation, neither an iota of
evidence has been collected nor a suspicion has been raised in
any manner connecting the petitioner with the alleged act of
escape of under-trial prisoner. Except for the suspicion so raised
by the informant, there is no evidence, at all, which could justify
the implication of the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
19. Further ingredients of the offences as stipulated
under sections 224, 225 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code do
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53459 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026
9/10
not appear to have been attracted against the petitioner. Section
224 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of crime related to
resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension,
whereas offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code
speaks of resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of
another person. The ingredients of the two aforesaid sections are
not, at all, attracted in the present case, where the petitioner has
been sought to be implicated as there was no allegation against
the petitioner for causing any obstruction or putting any
resistance with respect to lawful apprehension of under-trial
prisoner.
20. In the factual and legal conspectus discussed
hereinabove, the present criminal proceeding initiated against
the petitioner appears to be an outcome of total non-application
of judicial mind on the part of the learned trial Court, which in
absence of any cogent, credible and legally tenable evidence,
took cognizance of offences of the aforesaid sections which is
not attracted against the petitioner in the present case.
21. Accordingly, the order dated 23.05.2013, taking
cognizance of offences under sections 224, 225 and 120(B) of
the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Motihari in connection with Motihari Town P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53459 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026
10/10
Case No. 416/2009 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner
only and as such all the criminal proceedings emanating
therefrom are also quashed and set aside.
22. Thus, this application stands allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 31.07.2026
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date 03.09.2026