Dr. Ram Pukar Prasad Rahi @ Ram Kumar Prasad Rahi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85608 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2023 Thana- GURUA District- Gaya ====================================================== Dr. Ram Pukar Prasad Rahi @ Ram Kumar Prasad Rahi S/O Dipan Prasad R/O Village and Post- Sagahi, P.S- Gurua, Distt.- Gaya (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 05-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the earlier counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the anticipatory bail application without any rhyme or reason and without obtaining the consent of the petitioner by order dated 17.06.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the matter relates to engagement in the illegal practice of running an unauthorized nursing home and certain pathology centres without having the requisite certificates and qualifications. It is further pointed out that other accused persons have already been granted the privilege of anticipatory

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85608 of 2025(2) dt.05-12-2025 2/2 bail by the learned Court of Sessions Judge. He further submits that, as a matter of fact, a Primary Health Sub-Centre is being run in the house of the petitioner and his wife is an A.N.M and for this reason he has been made an accused in the present case.

4. Learned APP has opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the fact that this is a second attempt to seek anticipatory bail, the earlier application having been withdrawn on a previous occasion, thus without any changed circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the earlier order or to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail. However, in case the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail within a period of four weeks before the learned court concerned, the same shall be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the present order or the earlier withdrawal, preferably on the same day and shall also take into consideration that other accused persons have already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail on similar allegations.

6. The application stands disposed of.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T