Om Prakash Kumar @ Om Prakash Yadav @ Dr. Prakash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18544 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-461 Year-2025 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Om Prakash Kumar @ Om Prakash Yadav @ Dr. Prakash Yadav S/o- Kailash Yadav village- Manjathi PS- Bandeya District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Madan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Rafiganj Police Station Case No. 461 of 2025, dated 17.11.2025, disclosing offences under Sections 105/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant, on 14.11.2025, took his wife to the Central Hospital, Rafiganj, run by Dr. Prakash Yadav, for the treatment of stomach pain on the saying of Gautam Kumar. Dr. Prakash Yadav admitted the wife of the informant, but in the evening, the health of the wife of the informant deteriorated and later on she died. After the death of the wife of the informant, Dr. Prakash Yadav, i.e.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18544 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/3 the petitioner and Gautam Kumar fled away after switching off their mobiles.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to village politics. He further submits that the petitioner is not a doctor and the said hospital is run by one Dr. Vinod kumar. The petitioner is in no way connected with the hospital and or the alleged offence.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is the owner of the hospital and the same was being run without any valid documents and without qualified doctor having requisite qualification.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. From perusal of the material on record and the First Information Report, it transpires that the petitioner is allegedly the proprietor of the hospital, but no valid papers have been produced regarding his qualification, who appears to be quack. If hospital is run by unqualified doctors (quacks), it could have serious repercussions on public health. It could undermine trust in the health care system, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18544 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 3/3 petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √