[2026:JHHC:9295] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1150 of 2026 Dharmendra Kumar Mehta @ Dharmendra Mehta, aged about 46 years, Son of Bashishtha Mehta, resident of Village-Sisri, P.O. Torelwa, P.S. Kharaundhi, District-Garhwa. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate. : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ------ 03/ 01.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bhavnathpur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 125, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nagar Untari, Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be the owner of Shirsaran Seva Sansthan and he has obtained the certificate of registration in light of the provisions enshrined under Section 15 of the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, which is contained in Annexure-2 of the petition. He next submits that wife of Umesh Kumar was treated in the said hospital and she died in course of the treatment, for that the deceased husband has lodged the FIR, being Bhavnathpur P.S. Case No. 196 of 2025, however, the said case was subsequently compromised with the informant and on the basis of said compromise, [2026:JHHC:9295] -2- the case has already been quashed. He further submits that now the present case has been lodged by the In-charge Medical Officer, alleging therein that without having the valid license, the said hospital is being run. On these grounds, he submits that the privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that it appears that the petitioner has done the operation on the body of the deceased. 5. Considering that the husband of the deceased has compromised the case and subsequently, on that basis, the FIR has been quashed and further Annexure-2 of the petition suggests that for running the hospital, proper permission has been taken and certificate to that effect has also been obtained in light of the provisions enshrined under Section 15 of the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 and in that view of the matter, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks from today and the learned Court shall release the petitioner on such terms and conditions or the sureties as the learned Court may deem fit and proper. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-01.04.2026 Amitesh/-