[2026:RJ-JP:11882] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 735/2026 Mohammad Ajruddin @ Ajruddin S/o Majid, R/o Near Mev Masjid, Village Tain, Police Station Nuh Sadar, District Nuh (Mewat), Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Samad Mr. Sandeep Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, P.P. Mr. R.R. Gurjar Dr. Vijay Kumar, C.M.H.O., District Deeg HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 19/03/2026 1. This miscellaneous bail application has been preferred by the accused-petitioner Mohammad Ajruddin @ Ajruddin S/o Majid, under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., apprehending his arrest in connection with the FIR No.283/2025 dated 19.09.2025 registered at Police Station Jurhera, District Deeg for the offences punishable under Sections 105 and 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023. 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a surgeon and possesses the requisite qualifications, therefore, authorised to perform operation on the basis of the qualification he possess. Learned counsel further submits that the present petitioner performed the operation in the I.J. Hospital, Mother and Child Care, Jurhera, District Deeg, Rajasthan , and therefore, he has not [2026:RJ-JP:11882] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-735/2026] committed any offence. Learned counsel submits that the death of the patient occurred on account of medical complication, which at the most, may amount to a case of medical negligence and cannot be treated as a serious offence as alleged by the complainant in the impugned FIR. In view thereof, learned counsel prayed the present petitioner may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by exercising its power under Section 482 B.N.S.S., 2023. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant informed this Court that the accused-petitioner, though he has not used the word ‘Dr.’ before his name, is also involved in another case of medical negligence registered in the same district in the year 2024. This fact has neither been disclosed in bail application nor it is within the knowledge of the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the petitioner, who is a surgeon and had performed the surgery on the deceased, who subsequently died, was duty bound to perform the surgeries in only the registered hospital/medical establishments, having due permission from the Government. However, petitioner disregarded the same and performed the operation in a hospital which lacked basic medical infrastructure required for performing the operation. As a qualified professional doctor, such conduct on his part is serious and raises grave concerns. Performing such surgeries without the requisite medical infrastructure and absence of necessary medical staff is not only a case of professional negligence, but also a serious offence requiring a thorough investigation by the police. The petitioner is absconding, had not [2026:RJ-JP:11882] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-735/2026] appeared before the Investigating Officer and has not co-operated with the investigation till now, despite the fact that the FIR was registered on 19.09.2025. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, and looking to the nature of the allegations as reported in the FIR, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Section 482 B.N.S.S.. 6. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J Dushyant/2