2025:JHHC:16817 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6213 of 2024 ---- Anant Kumar Anand @ Anand Kumar Anand, S/o Kishori Sharma, R/o Village- Pansalva, P.O. and P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ---- 11/ 25.06.2025 The present anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar Police Station Case No.259 of 2024, registered for the offences alleged under Sections 318, 319, 336(2), 221, 222, 125 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 41 of the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. 2. First Information Report was registered on the basis of a complaint by Dr. Jagdish Prasad, Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Chatra, alleging that Anant Kumar Anand was running an unregistered nursing home, Kanta Anand Clinic Institute, in violation of the Clinical Establishment Act. During a surprise inspection, the clinic was found closed, and Anand Kumar failed to cooperate in inspection. His wife eventually allowed inspection, revealing substandard facilities and no valid documents. Two patients admitted there confirmed that they were treated after being denied services at the government hospital. The informant alleges Anant Kumar Anand is a fake doctor conducting surgeries with other unqualified persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that the petitioner is neither doctor in the said clinic nor the proprietor of the clinic. He submitted that the clinic is running as per the provisions of law. He submitted that the petitioner is merely owner of the building and he had rented the ground floor of the building to one Dr. Rajeev Kumar to open and run the clinic, for which there is agreement also. He further submitted that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. On these grounds, he prayed that the petitioner be granted privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner. He submitted 2025:JHHC:16817 -: 2 :- that petitioner was running the clinic in violation of Clinical Establishment Act. He submitted that there are enough materials to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in running the clinic. 5. In order to appreciate the arguments of the parties, I have gone through the available records including the case diary. I find that paragraph 66 of the case diary contains the statement of witness Shanti Devi, who stated that it is this petitioner Anand Kumar and his wife Kanti Devi, who had carried surgery. At paragraph 68, witness Soni Devi has stated in similar manner. Paragraph 72 contains the statement of Abhay Kumar Sinha, who has also stated that he used to see that it was this petitioner who used to treat the patients and his wife Kanti Devi used to assist him. 6. Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is the landlord, who had handed over the premises to another person for which there is agreement also. Though there is agreement, but statement of witnesses, as stated above, suggests that the petitioner is involved in the crime. I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03