2025:JHHC:15391 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4701 of 2024 ------ 1.Suraj Kumar, son of Binod Ram 2.Neha Kumari Singh, wife of Suraj Kumar Both resident of village Barki Suriya, PO Suriya, PS Sariya, District Giridih, State Jharkhand … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, Advocate. Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Sahdeo Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate ----- 07/ 13.06.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for offences registered under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Sariya PS Case No. 62 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the date of occurrence petitioner no.1 was not present at the place of occurrence. He also submits that he is the student of D-Pharma and has got nothing to do with treating patient. As per him the clinic belongs to Anand Verma and this petitioner is nowhere related. He lastly submits that the petitioner no. 2 is fourth grade employee. 4. From the FIR, I find that the wife of the informant was suffering from abdomen pain was admitted in one Anand clinic. It is stated that this petitioner no. 1 not being the doctor treated her, resulting in her death. He was assisted by this petitioner no. 2 also. 5. After going through the case-diary especially paragraph nos. 23 and 47, it has come to light that the petitioner no. 1 2025:JHHC:15391 2 not being doctor treated the patient. 6. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 7. Considering the nature of allegation, this case needs proper investigation including recording of the statement of the petitioners and others, this Court finds it not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3