Maa Emergency Hospital, Kumod Ranjan @ Kumod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36381 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2024 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MAA Emergency Hospital, Kumod Ranjan @ Kumod Kumar S/O Baidhanath Ray Resident of Village- Repura Jamin Mathiya, Kalyanpur, P.S.- Minapur (Panapur OP), District- Muzaffarpur, ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Minapur P.S. Case No. 44 of 2024 registered under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 14.12.2023, a complaint was filed by complainant Rinku Devi on the basis of which an enquiry was conducted into Maa Emergency Hospital. In the initial enquiry, it was found that the hospital was operational since one year but the proprietor of the hospital did not produce any document regarding registration of the Hospital and no doctor or para-medical staff was present in the hospital. Subsequently, on 19.01.2024, another enquiry was conducted by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36381 of 2025(2) dt.09-06-2025 2/3 the BDO, Minapur, and In-charge Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, and this time the organization was found closed, all rooms were found empty, no items relating to hospital was found and the people told that hospital was not operational.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of complaint and from perusal of the complaint no offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has been made accused merely because he is the son of the owner of the premises in which the the hospital was running. The premises, in question, is owned by the petitioner's father, who let-out the premises to somebody. He next submits that in the enquiry conducted by the In-charge Medical Officer, Public Health Center, no trace of hospital was found running in the premises.

5. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is not the owner and during the enquiry no trace of hospital was found running in the premises, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. This application is, accordingly, allowed.

7. Let the petitioner above named, in the event of his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36381 of 2025(2) dt.09-06-2025 3/3 arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court No. 8 of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (East), Muzaffarpur, in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 44 of 2024, subject to the condition laid down under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Raj Ranjan/- U T