2025:JHHC:11648 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5319 of 2024 ------ Ranjeet Kumar, son of Bashant Prasad, resident of Village Kasmar, P.O. + P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mundrika Yadav, son of late Guthal Yadav, resident of Gajwa Tola, Harbolwa, P.O. + P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra. ... ... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate, (through V.C.) Mr. Adam Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P. ----- 07/ 17.04.2025 Learned counsel Mr. Utkarsh Singh, appeared through virtual mode. There is no complaint with regard to clarity or quality in audio or video. 2. This Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case No.19 of 2024, for offences under Sections 304 and 34 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned SDJM, Chatra. 3. Heard the parties at length. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that similarly situated co-accused namely Ravindra Prasad and Panwa Devi have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.08.2024 and 16.08.2024 in A.B.A. Nos.4272 of 2024 and 4310 of 2024 respectively, thus, this petitioner as per law is entitled for parity. 2025:JHHC:11648 2 He refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanha Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 SCC OnLine All 871 260 (Para-53 & 58). He submits that by legal fiction, the petitioner is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. On merits, he submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that he has only brought the deceased to the Nursing Home but has not conducted any operation. It is his case that utmost the case will fall under Section 304A IPC and not Section 304 simpliciter. On query, learned counsel specifically stated that the petitioner is not a Doctor thus, he cannot operate. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer and submits that it is an admitted case that the petitioner is not a Doctor but he projected himself to be a Doctor. The fact that he projected himself to be a Doctor is evident from para-6 of this petition, wherein he claims that the petitioner being a resident Doctor of the locality and a good Samaritan, helped the lady and he had already informed the lady about the risk of life of the patient in respect of premature delivery. So far as parity is concerned, he submits that the orders of the co-accused which have been relied upon does not even indicate on what ground the anticipatory bails were granted, thus, are not binding upon this Court. 6. The F.I.R. being Pratappur P.S. Case No.19 of 2024, has been registered at the instance of the informant - Mundrika Yadav, against three person i.e. (1) Ranjeet Kumar (petitioner herein), (2) Panma Devi and (3) Dr. Ravindra Kumar, alleging therein that on the ill fated day the informant took his daughter-in-law to the clinic 2025:JHHC:11648 3 of local Doctor - Ranjeet Kumar (petitioner herein) for treatment. He further alleged that during the course of delivery operation of his daughter-in-law, both mother and child died due to medical negligence and lack of proper care by the Doctor and other nursing staffs. 7. From the name of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner is not a Doctor. Learned counsel representing the petitioner also admitted the aforesaid fact while arguing the case. 8. When I go through the petition, which is on oath, in para-6 and 7, the petitioner has made the following statements:- "6. That it is pertinent to note that the true facts of the case are that it was the informant (O.P.-2), who has asked the Petitioner to arrange for medical facilities as the informant's daughter in law went into premature labour. The Petitioner being resident doctor of the locality, being a good Samaritan, actually helped the informant and had clearly told the informant about the risks to the life of the patient that is involved in such premature delivery. 7. That the Petitioner did his utmost to save the informant's daughter in law and her child, however, both could not be saved due to medical complication and during the child birth the informant's daughter in law went into shock resulting in" These statements made in para-6 and 7 of this petition clearly suggest that the petitioner acted as a Doctor and had treated the patient and rather took steps on premature delivery of the patient. 9. It is not a case of medical negligence as the aspect of medical negligence could have been attracted, if the petitioner was a Doctor. 10. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner is not a Doctor but had taken active part in the premature delivery of daughter- 2025:JHHC:11648 4 in-law of the informant and he acted as a medical expert which actually he was not. His act resulted in death of the mother and the child. 11. So far as claim of parity is concerned, there is no doubt that based on parity, a person can be entitled for the benefit which has been granted to other co-accused. 12. In this case the petitioner submits that two other co- accused namely Ravindra Prasad and Panwa Devi have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.08.2024 and 16.08.2024 in A.B.A. Nos.4272 of 2024 and 4310 of 2024 respectively. The fact that two other co-accused have been granted bail is not in dispute but when I go through both the orders, I find that in both the orders, nothing has been whispered as to on what ground the bail has been granted. In A.B.A. No.4272 of 2024, the bail order dated 07.08.2024 is in five paragraphs. First paragraph of the said order is "heard learned counsel for the parties", second paragraph is introductory, third and fourth paragraphs are the submission and opposition of learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the opposite party - State, respectively, and in the fifth and last paragraph, the Court has enlarged the petitioner on bail. Para-5, which is the operative portion, is quoted hereinbelow:- “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Court below within a period of three weeks. If he surrenders before the Court below within the aforesaid period, he shall be released on 2025:JHHC:11648 5 bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case No. 19/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” In A.B.A. No.4310 of 2024, first paragraph is introductory, second and third paragraphs are the submission and opposition of learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the opposite party - State, respectively, and in fourth and fifth paragraphs, the Court was inclined and ordered the petitioner to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Para-4 and 5 which are the operative portion, are quoted hereinbelow:- “4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.” Since, in both the aforesaid orders, at all no reason is given for grant of anticipatory bail, in my opinion, the same cannot bind this Court. 13. Considering what has been held in para-7 to 11, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3