Patna: The Patna high court on Wednesday ruled that the state govt is liable to pay ex gratia to the family of a police personnel who dies of cardiac arrest while performing law and order duties.A division bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh dismissed the state govt’s intra-court appeal against an order directing payment of ex-gratia to Madhu Bharati, widow of police inspector Jaiprakash, who died due to cardiorespiratory failure while on duty. The bench also directed the govt to pay the arrears with 9% interest and imposed a cost of Rs25,000 for filing the appeal.On Feb 4, 2009, Jaiprakash, then circle inspector of Gopalganj town, was deputed at Hathua subdivision during a Saraswati Puja idol immersion procession in Gopalganj district.Amid mob violence involving bomb blasts and stone pelting, he collapsed while performing his duties and was taken to the nearest hospital, where he was declared brought dead. Medical experts attributed his death to cardiorespiratory failure.His widow, Madhu Bharati, applied for the ex-gratia payment available to the families of police personnel who die in service, but her request did not yield any result.She then filed a writ petition in the Patna high court. Justice Sandeep Kumar allowed it on March 15, 2024, according to the available details. The state govt challenged the order before a division bench, which dismissed its appeal on Wednesday.HC: Advocates cannot face criminal liability for professional duties: The Patna high court has quashed a 16-year-old criminal case against an advocate accused of causing wrongful loss to a public sector bank through an allegedly faulty legal opinion, observing that lawyers cannot be held criminally liable merely for performing their professional duties.A single bench of Justice Rana Vikram Singh allowed a petition filed by Gopal Krishna Agrawal and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from Gandhi Maidan police station case No. 366/2008.Agrawal, a senior central govt counsel at the Patna bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), had been prosecuted over a legal opinion he gave as an empanelled counsel of the bank that later lodged the complaint.The bank alleged that title deeds submitted by borrowers as collateral security were fraudulent, although Agrawal’s legal opinion had approved them.Justice Singh observed: “An advocate is a defender of the law, not an accomplice in the crime while performing his legal duties.”The judgment was delivered on Oct 26 and became public on Wednesday.
