2025:JHHC:19446 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3769 of 2025 ----- Dr. Prabas Baidya @ Pravas Baidya @ Pravash Baidya, S/o Manamnath, R/o Manmnath, House No.32, Ward No.9, Karra Para, Bagbahara, P.O. & P.S.- Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh), at present R/o Village Meral Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Meral, District- Garhwa .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, AddI. P.P …...... 04/ 17.07.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences under Section 304 of IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is of negligence in treating a patient who died. 4. On the earlier round of litigations, while anticipatory bail application of the petitioner being A.B.A. No.5394 of 2024 was argued, the same was allowed to be withdrawn on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. This is second attempt of the petitioner of filing an anticipatory bail. Today his ground is that the informant has totally back tracked from the allegation and has filed a petition stating that nothing has happen to her husband and this petitioner is not responsible. 6. In the F.I.R., the informant has alleged that her husband was suffering from hydrocele disease and was treated by the petitioner on 26.04.2023 in his clinic, but his condition later on deteriorated due to the Doctor’s negligence and finally he died on 30.04.2023. In restatement before the police during investigation she stood by her statement. Now she has back tracked and filed an application exonerating the petitioner. 7. This clearly suggest that the victim/ informant has been gained over by the petitioner. This case not only needs custodial investigation, but custodial trial is also necessary. 8. Considering the nature of allegation and the fact noted above, I am not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with Meral P.S. Case No.67 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Garhwa, stands rejected. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./