Page |1

BEFORE THE LOKAYUKTA OF BIHAR, PATNA

COMPLAINT NO. ………………… of 2019

1. Om Prakash Rai S/o Ram Udai Rai, R/o Village Goriya Dera, P.S. Bihta
(Neora O.P.), Distt. Patna. …………Complainant.

Versus

1. Dr. Krishna Kumar, Erstwhile Medical Officer, Bihta Referral Hospital,

Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bihar. (R1)

2. Dr. Bharat Singh, Orthopedics Department, Patna Medical College &

Hospital, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bihar (R2)
………Public Servants, Complained against, Respondents.

3. Sushma Devi W/o Ramjee Rai, (PR1)

4. Ishu Kumar S/o Ramjee Rai (PR2)
5. Ramjee Rai S/o Late Ram Avtar Rai, (PR3)

All are residents of Purainiya Goriyadeara, P.O.

Neora, P.S. Bihta (Neora), Distt. Patna & Others.
…………...Private Respondents, Complained against.

INDEX

Sr.No. Particular of Papers Page No.

01. Affidavit & required fee in support of Complaint On top of complaint
02. Synopsis 02 to 02
03. Chronology of Events 03 to 04
04. Points to be urged 05 to 05
05 Statement for Limitation Period 06 to 06
06 Complaint 07 to 14
07 List of Documents 15 to 15
08 Annexure 16 to 29
 Page |2

SYNOPSIS

That the present complaint under Bihar lokayukta Act 2011, is being filed

against public servants for disregarding norms of conduct expected of their class

whereby issued false injury report and fabricated POP casting on uninjured leg

in connivance with private respondents on subornation which culminated in

judicial custody of complainant and his brother for 11 days.

To deceive courts and police officers in the Bihta PS case no. 872/17, informant

of the case who is PR1 along with PR3 persuaded the R1 by underhand &

unethical means to reserve the opinion for uninjured elbow of PR2 and got him

referred to the PMCH.

But, R2 in the PMCH immediately fabricated POP casting on the leg of PR2

solely on extraneous consideration rather than medico clinical evidences.

However, Assistant Superintendent of the PMCH, in injury report in this case has

not found any boney injury. It is preposterous but pertinent to note that X-ray of

the uninjured leg was done after two days of fabrication of POP Casting.

PR1 and her family members of the said case submitted the photograph of the

fabricated POP casting before the DIG, Patna as well as before the Hon. Court

and falsely pleaded that the leg of her son was fractured by complainant and his

family members, resulted in atrocities of police and rejection of anticipatory bail

petitions of complainant and his family members.

Public servants in this case delinquently issued fake injury report and fabricated

POP casting in connivance with private respondents on illegal gratification.

 Page |3

C H R O N O L O G Y OF E V E N T S

Sr No. Date Events

1. 31/10/2017 As per Bihta P.S. FIR no. 872/17, Neora O.P. SHO was
4:00 PM informed about the alleged incident, recorded incident in
D.D., Lodged the FIR in different section of IPC and
subsequently sent PR2 to Bihta referral hospital for
treatment with police requisition.

2. 31/10/2017 PR2 was examined by R1 on police requisition; he

1:40 PM reserved his opinion for injuries on the uninjured
elbow of PR2 and found all the injuries simple.

3. 31/10/2017 PR2 was examined at P.M.C.H. and prescribed for POP

5:30 PM casting on the left foot.

4. 31/10/2017 POP rolls and medicine were brought and subsequently a

8:10 PM plaster cast put on the left foot of PR2

5. 02/11/2017 X-ray on the left foot of PR2 was done at P.M.C.H. after
plaster cast was put on.

6. 08/11/2017 The DIG, Patna while reviewing Bihta P.S. case no.
872/17, has suspended the first I.O. of the case and
ordered to arrest complainant and his family members
vide Memo no. 7270 issued on the basis of petition filed
by PR1 in which she stated that Petitioners has
fractured the leg of PR2.

7. 14/11/2017 A.B. petition no. 6139/17 was filed on behalf of father of

the complainant in the court of Hon. District & Session
Judge Patna.
 Page |4

8. 14/12/2017 A list of document produced in A.B.P. no. 6139 in the

court of Ld. ADJ VI on behalf of informant along with (1)
Photograph of PR2 with POP casting put on the his leg
(2) Prescription of Dr. Bharat Singh of dated 6/12/2017
and (3) X-ray dated 2/12/2017 taken after POP casting put
on the leg of PR2.

9. 20/12/2017 A.B.P. no. 6139 was rejected by the court of Ld. ADJ VI
of Danapur Civil Court filed on behalf of father of the
complainant.

10. 05/01/2018 A.B.P. no. 6465/17 was rejected by the court of Ld. ADJ
VI of Danapur Civil Court filed by the complainant and
his brother

11. 29/01/2018 Complainant and his brother surrendered themselves in

the court of Ld. SDJM, Danapur and whereby they had
subsequently been sent to Beur central Jail.

12. 01/02/2018 The Hon. Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail in
Bihta P.S case no. 872/17 to the father of complainant.

13. 02/02/2018 The conducting lawyer withdrew the anticipatory bail

petition in the Hon. Patna High Court of the complainant
and his brother as they had to surrender before the trial
court.

14. 09/02/2018 Complainant and his brother released from jail on regular
bail after furnishing bail bonds.

15. 07/08/2018 Charge sheet filed against complainant and against his
family members in Bihta P.S. Case no. 872/17 in the court
of Ld. SDJM, Danapur.
 Page |5

POINTS TO BE URGED

That the reservation of opinion for injury on uninjured elbow vis `a vis POP

casting on leg in the PMCH is indicative of fact that the opinion of R1 was based

on illegal gratification rather on medico clinical evidences.

That the institution of ante timed Bihta P.S. case no. 872/17 in stringent sections

of IPC after reservation of opinion for elbow of Ishu Kumar also shows that R1

was suborned to reserve his opinion for injury of PR2 so that injury can be

shown grievous to deceit the police and the courts.

That the fabrication of POP casting by R2, before any x-ray, on the non injured

leg of PR2 is indicative of the act of the respondent no. 2 was also based on

monetary consideration rather than medico clinical evidences.

That the Assistant Superintendent of the PMCH in his injury report stated that no

boney injury caused to the PR2. Therefore it is beyond any doubt that acts of

reservation of opinion for injury of uninjured elbow by R1 and thereafter

fabrication of POP casting on uninjured leg, before any X-ray, by R2 are clear

example of corruption.

That the acts of respondents caused incalculable harm to reputation & prestige of

complainant and his family members as precious personal liberty provided by

the Constitution of India to the complainant and his family members was greatly

compromised as they were sent behind bars illegally for 11 days due to

corruption of respondents.
 Page |6

STATEMENT FOR LIMITATION PERIOD

Necessary Declaration under sub section 5 of the section 29 of chapter VIII

of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011

a) Whether the complaint is made after the expiry of twelve months from the

date on which the action complained against becomes known to the

complainant?

(a) No, Complainant knew the illegal action of respondents only when he

released from judicial custody on dated 09/02/2018 by way of reading his

bail order. That’s why on dated 01/02/2018, during hearing of anticipatory

bail petition before the Hon. Patna High Court it was submitted that opinion

was reserved by respondents.

(Web copy of the anticipatory bail orders on dated 01/02/2018 and

02/02/2018 of the Hon’able Patna High Court are being annexed herewith
and marked as annexure–VII to this complaint(Page No. 27 to 29 )

b) Whether the complaint is made after the expiry of five years from the

date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken

place?

(b) No, illegal actions of govt. respondent continued between 31/10/2017

to 17/12/2017, therefore, complaint is being filed well within time.

 Page |7

BEFORE THE LOKAYUKTA OF BIHAR, PATNA

COMPLAINT NO. …………….. of 2019

1. Om Prakash Rai S/o Ram Udai Rai, R/o Village Goriya Dera, P.S. Bihta

(Neora O.P.), Distt. Patna. …………Complainant.

Versus

1. Krishna Kumar, Medical Officer, Bihta Referral Hospital, Health

Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bihar. (R1)

2. Dr. Bharat Singh, Orthopedics Department, Patna Medical College &

Hospital, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bihar (R2)

………Public Servants, Complained against, respondents.

3. Sushma Devi W/o Ramjee Rai (PR1)

4. Ishu Kumar S/o Ramjee Rai (PR2)

5. Ramjee Rai S/o Late Ram Avtar Rai (PR3)

………Private respondents.

In the matter of complaint filed

against respondents for issuing fake

injury report & fabricating POP

casting on monetary consideration.

To,

The Hon. chairperson and his companion Hon. members of The Lokayukta

of Bihar. The humble complaint of complainant above named most respectfully

sheweth as under:-
 Page |8

1. Particulars of the cause/order against which the complaint is made:-

The subject matter of this complaint is the palpable corruption of

respondents which can be gauzed by the facts that the R1 reserved his

opinion for uninjured elbow of PR2 but POP casting done on the

uninjured leg by R2 which was already declared simple by R1. It is

preposterous but pertinent to note that x-ray of leg was done after 2 days

of the fabrication of POP casting. The photograph of fabricated POP

casting of the injured later submitted to the police and court for deception

by Informant (PR1) of the Bihta P.S. case no. 872/17 culminated in

illegal judicial custody of 11 days of the complainant and his brother.

2. Facts in brief, constituting the cause:-

a) That Bihta P.S. case no. 872/17 was informed and lodged on dated

31/10/2017 at 4:00 P:M on the written information of PR1 is self

contradictory and prove itself as mala fide as R1 had examined

respondent no. 4 for injuries on police requisition slip at 1:40 P:M

(A photocopy of the C.C. of Bihta P.S. case no. 872/17 is being annexed
herewith and marked as annexure–I to this complaint (Paee16 no. to 20)

b) That in the Bihta P.S case no. 872/17, R1 at Bihta referral hospital, in his

injury report, has reserved his opinion for uninjured elbow of the PR2 and

found simple injuries on leg and referred him to PMCH for further

treatment and opinion of the elbow.

(A photocopy of the injury report prepared by respondent no. 1 is being

annexed herewith and marked as annexure–II to this complaint (Page n.
21 to 21)
 Page |9

c) But in the haste and within hours the private respondents in connivance

with R2 successfully managed to fabricate plaster on the uninjured leg of

PR2 in the PMCH solely on the strength of palm greasing. It is

preposterous but pertinent to note that X-ray of the leg was taken after

lapse of whole two days after fabrication of plaster on uninjured leg.

d) Although in the haste, private respondents were successfully managed to

fabricate plaster on uninjured leg of the PR2 in connivance with R2 so

that the injury caused to PR2 shall be seen as grievous in nature and for

that private respondents managed to produce a photograph showing one

leg of PR2 was plastered rather the fact of the fact is that the doctors

never found the injury of the leg much less the fractured one.

e) That on the strength of fabrication of plaster on uninjured leg of PR2, the

private respondents made false representation before D.I.G. Central range

patna that complainant and his family members had fractured by assault

the leg of PR2. The D.I.G. was put in dark from the real facts and undue

influence culminated in suspension of the first I.O. of the case and blanket

order vide memo no. 7692 dated 11/11/2017 was issued to arrest the

complainant and his family members.

A photocopy of the Memo no. 7692 dated 11/11/2017 is being annexed

herewith and marked as annexure-III to this complaint (Page no.22 to 22)

f) That on the strength fabricated plaster casting on the uninjured leg, the

private respondents paraded PR2 in the court of Ld. ADJ VI and

submitted a list of document in A.B.P. no. 6139 on behalf of the PR1

 P a g e | 10

along with (1) Photograph of PR2 with POP casting put on his uninjured

leg, (2) Prescription of R2 dated 6/12/2017 and (3) X-ray dated 2/12/2017

taken after POP casting put on uninjured leg of PR2.

(A copy of the list of documents and copy of photograph of PR2 produced

in the court of Ld. ADJ VI are being annexed herewith and marked as
annexure–IV to this complaint (Page no. 23 to 24)

g) Although, doctors in PMCH were unable to find any injury of PR2 much

less the grievous one but Assistant superintendent of PMCH in injury

report bearing no. 21215 issued on dated 23/11/2017 mentioned that no

bony injury caused to PR2.

A photocopy of the injury report bearing no. 21215 issued on dated

23/11/17 is being annexed herewith and marked as annexure-V to this
complaint (Page no.25 to 25)

h) That on the basis of injury report of PMCH bearing no. 21215 issued on

dated 23/11/2017, the R1 in his supplementary injury report declared

injury no. 1 of PR2 as simple in nature it is pertinent to note that he had

already declared the remaining injuries of the injured were simple in

nature.

A photocopy of the supplementary injury report is being annexed

herewith and marked as annexure-VI to this complaint (Page no.26 to 26)

i) That during the investigation of the Bihta P.S. case no. 872/17, the fact

has come to the fore that the impresario of all the subornation,

concoctions and deceptions was PR3 as in his statement before the case

I.O. he accepted the fact that he was responsible for taking PR2 to the
 P a g e | 11

Neora O.P. and was busy in treatment in the Bihta referral hospital and

thereafter in the PMCH.

j) That the reservation of opinion for uninjured elbow and fabrication of

plaster casting on uninjured leg, even before any X-ray, on extraneous

consideration rather than medico clinical evidences disclose commission

of offences punishable under S. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act

1988 and S. 120 B & 193 of the IPC against the public servants and

private respondents.

3 Grounds:-
a) Because the suborned acts of the respondents were responsible for

registration of Bihta P.S. case no. 872/17 under stringent sections of the

Indian Penal Code.

b) Because the fabrication of evidences of respondents caused The DIG,

patna to suspend the First of I.O. of the Bihta case no. 872/17 on fictitious

ground and issue blanket orders to arrest the complainant and his family

members on the charge of fracturing the leg of PR2 by assault.

c) Because the acts of respondents culminated in illegal judicial custody of

the complainant and his brother for 11 days which is the gross violation of

fundamental rights of the complainant and his brother as enshrined under

Article 14/19/21 of the Constitution of India.

 P a g e | 12

d) Because subornation of respondents also polluted the fountain of justice

as the photograph of fabricated plaster casting was submitted in the court

of Ld. ADJ VI

e) Because the act of respondents immensely eroded the reputation of

doctors. In our society doctors are regarded as second god who lives on

earth. Hence we have slogans “Vaidyo Narayanao Harih” (Doctor is

Narayana Himself). Therefore they must be punished to send a message in

society that whenever a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from

doing harm.

f) Because the Hon. Chief Justice of India, Late Justice J.S. Verma, in the
case of Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 while
discussing “The Seven Principles of Public Life” from the report of Lord
Nolan, Chairman, Committee on Standards in Public Life in England has
held

“These principles of public life are of general application in every

democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinizing
the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of
public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public
interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the
people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts
to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being
pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be
promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case
is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law
is upheld and the rule of law is vindicated.”
 P a g e | 13

In view of the facts and the circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully
prayed that the Hon. Lokayukta of Bihar may be pleased to:

4 Prayers:-
a) Be pleased to order investigation into the facts and the circumstances
stated above of alleged conspiracy and subornation by respondents and
take consequential action thereafter.

b) Be pleased to initiate proceeding after investigation against respondents

for offences punishable under S. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
1988 and S. 120 B and 193 of the IPC.

c) Be pleased to conclude and recommend action against R1 for reservation

of opinion for uninjured elbow and against R2 for fabrication of POP
casting, even before X-ray taken, on uninjured leg of PR2.

d) Be pleased to grant damages in such circumstances as it deems fit.

e) Be pleased to provide any other relief as the Hon. Lokayukta of Bihar

deems fit, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case

5. Additional Submissions:-

The Complainant most respectfully prays the Hon. Lokayukta of Bihar to

consider following points while hearing/ deciding the complaint.

I. The Complainant respectfully submits that Complainant is still receiving

Justice even if his all prayers are turned down. The Complainant most

respectfully submits that the fate of Justice is tied to the thread of reason.
 P a g e | 14

II. The Complainant humbly states that the Reliefs prayed for therein are not

unlawful. Yet, the Hon. Lokayukta of Bihar may think otherwise and may

deny the Reliefs so prayed for; and in that event the Hon. Lokayukta of

Bihar may please be generous to incorporate in its order, reasons for

denying the reliefs.

III. There seems to be an instinctive feeling in most of men that a person who

has done an injury should be punished for it. However, in the light of above

settings, the valid reason for punishing delinquency is not to avenge injury

caused, but to prevent future injury to someone else. And, therefore, if it is

true that, “if one is to be hanged so that others may not steal”, then

complainant go to the Hon. Lokayukta of Bihar not only to get justice for

self but also for the good of the society.

IV. While taking into account the submissions of complainant as contained in

points 1 to 3, the Hon. Lokayukta of Bihar is prayed to satisfy itself,

recording their valued reasoning in its order that if conduct of the public

servants, in the matrix of facts of the case & settled position of law,

indicates the breach of enacted laws/ indicates the failure of duties enjoined

by law on them.

It is therefore humbly prayed that Hon’able Lokayukta of Bihar be pleased to

initiate investigation into the facts and circumstances submitted hereinbefore
and take consequential action thereafter. And/ or be pleased to pass such
orders may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the complaint.

And for this, complainant shall ever pray

 P a g e | 15

BEFORE THE LOKAYUKTA OF BIHAR, PATNA

COMPLAINT NO. …………….. of 2019

In the matter of

1. Om Prakash Rai …………Complainant.

Versus

1. Dr. Krishna Kumar

2. Dr. Bharat Singh

3. Sushma Devi

4. Ishu Kumar

5. Ramjee Rai …… Persons Complained Against

List of Documents on Behalf of Complainant:-

Sr. No. of Brief Description of Original/ Certified
Remarks
No. Documents the Documents Copy of True Copy
01 05 Bihta P.S. case no. Annexure I
C.C. of True Copy
872/17.
02 01 Injury Report C.C. of True Copy Annexure II

03 01 Memo no. 7692 Annexure III

C.C. of True Copy
dated 11/11/2017
04 02 list of documents & Annexure IV
C.C. of True Copy
copy of photograph
05 01 PMCH Injury Annexure V
C.C. of True Copy
Report
06 01 Supplementary Annexure VI
C.C. of True Copy
Injury Report
07 03 Hon. Patna High Annexure VII
C.C. of Web Copy
Court’s Order

Verified………………………… Date………………………
Signature of the Officer Signature of the Party filing,