Bibhuti Nath Jha v. State Of Bihar .

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was facing trial at Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2003 arising out of Bachawara P.S. Case No. 34 of 1999. He sought (i) treatment at a reputed mental hospital and (ii) provisional bail. A Medical Board constituted pursuant to High Court directions reported on 14-9-2004 that the appellant should be referred to RINPAS, Kankey, Ranchi for Inpatient Psychiatric (Intensive Observation) Care. The High Court rejected this prayer, stating that whatever treatment was available in the State of Bihar would be provided, and also rejected bail by the impugned order. The appellant filed the present appeal, and the Court issued limited notice on 5-1-2005 on the question of referral to RINPAS, noting the stated lack of specialised facilities in Bihar.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant should be referred to RINPAS, Kankey, Ranchi for specialised inpatient psychiatric (intensive observation) treatment as recommended by the Medical Board.
2. Whether the appellant should be granted bail/provisional bail.

Arguments of the Parties

State of Bihar's Position

• The State, through counsel, did not object to the appellant receiving treatment at RINPAS, Kankey, Ranchi as suggested by the Medical Board.

Appellant's Position

• At the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not press the request for bail.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court confined its consideration to the issue raised by the limited notice: referral of the appellant to RINPAS, Kankey, Ranchi for specialised psychiatric care. It noted that the Medical Board had recommended referral to RINPAS for Inpatient Psychiatric (Intensive Observation) Care and that the State did not object to providing such treatment. In these circumstances, the Court directed that the appellant be referred to RINPAS for specialised inpatient treatment. As to bail, the Court recorded that the appellant's counsel did not press the request; accordingly, the prayer for bail was declined.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED IN PART: The appeal was allowed to the extent that the Court directed the appellant to be referred to RINPAS, Kankey, Ranchi for Inpatient Psychiatric (Intensive Observation) Care for specialised treatment. The request for bail was DECLINED.

The direct effect is that the appellant must be transferred for specialised inpatient psychiatric treatment at RINPAS, while remaining without bail. The opinion does not indicate any broader legal implications or the laying down of any new precedent.