( 2026:JHHC:18969 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2221 of 2026 Ramdheer Kumar @ Randhir Kumar, son of Kali Yadav, aged about 24 years, resident of village Naknuppa, P.O. Barhussainganj & P.s. Sherghati, District-Gaya, Bihar, Pincode-824211 ………...Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ………….Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P 02/ 30.06.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 153 of 2025, registered under sections 125(a), 106(1), 90 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 41 of the Clinical Establishment Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chatra. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and petitioner has only advised the informant to take his wife to the specialized hospital. He next submits that the petitioner has not done the operation on the body of the wife of the informant. He further submits that petitioner is pursuing course of Bachelor in Physiotherapy. He next submits that the petitioner is nothing to do with said private clinic where the wife of the informant was treated. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he has conducted operation without any medical examination and without having any degree of medical expertise. He next submits that independent witnesses have supported the case of prosecution in paras 3, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 15 of the case diary and in view of that anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. In the F.I.R., there is direct allegation against the petitioner of conducting operation on the body of the wife of the informant in absence of any medical examination and without having any degree of medical expertise. Further, it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is pursuing course of Bachelor in Physiotherapy ( 2026:JHHC:18969 ) which clearly suggests that petitioner has no licence of any medical specialization to conduct operation. The independent witnesses in paras 3, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 15 of the case diary have supported the case of prosecution. 5. In view of above, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt. 30.06.2026 satyarthi-