Ranjeet Kumar @ Dr. Ranjeet Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5020 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- BANSHI District- Jehanabad
                 ======================================================
                 Ranjeet Kumar @ Dr. Ranjeet Kumar Yadav S/o Dwarik Singh R/o Village -
                 Mahuabag, P.S - Karpi, District - Arwal

                                                                                  ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Yamuna Das S/o Late Indradeo Das R/o Village - Kishunpur, P.S - Banshi,
                 District - Arwal

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special PP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-06-2026                    1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

                   learned Special P.P. for the State, Mr. Sadanand Paswan.

                                  2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the

                   Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

                   Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST

                   Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide

                   order dated 28.11.2025 in A.B.P. No. 1653 of 2025 passed by

                   the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge

                   S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Jehanabad in connection with Banshi P.S.

                   Case No. 89 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable

                   under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as

                   Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5020 of 2025(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                             2/4




                          3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

          alleges that his second daughter-in-law was pregnant and he was

          returning after getting her ultrasound done when he met Dr.

          Ranjeet Kumar Yadav (appellant) who was working with Aditya

          hospital, further appellant after seeing the ultrasound report

          advised that the delivery would be normal and thereafter called

          the informant at his Ghazipur residence where he was running a

          clinic and thereafter got the victim admitted, it is next alleged

          that on 14.09.2025 at 05:00 PM, the victim was admitted in the

          clinic of the appellant and on 15.09.2025, the victim was

          operated and the child was delivered, but then the condition of

          the victim deteriorated, it is also alleged that the appellant asked

          his elder daughter-in-law about her caste and asked her to

          arrange money, accordingly his elder daughter-in-law went to

          Sonbhadra for arranging money and the appellant on the pretext

          of getting medicine also went to Sonbhadra, it is next alleged

          that thereafter the appellant came to his Ghazipur clinic and

          ousted the victim out of the clinic and fled with his compounder

          and wife, it is further alleged that when informant along with

          elder daughter-in-law came to the clinic of the appellant at

          Ghazipur, they saw the dead body of the victim.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5020 of 2025(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                             3/4




                          4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is further submitted that appellant is not a doctor

          rather is a dresser. It is also submitted that Aditya hospital is not

          run by the appellant nor he works as a doctor at Aditya hospital,

          since he is a dresser. It is further submitted that appellant never

          met the informant nor got the victim admitted in his clinic at

          Ghazipur. It is also submitted that for reasons best known, the

          informant implicated the appellant in the instant case.

                          5. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the

          appeal and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands

          admitted is that the second daughter-in-law of the informant

          died. It is also submitted that there is a specific allegation

          against the appellant in the FIR that he worked as a doctor at

          Aditya hospital and in that connection had met the informant

          and had advised for a normal delivery after seeing the

          ultrasound report and thereafter got the victim admitted at his

          Ghazipur clinic. It is next submitted that from pleadings made in

          the appeal, it would manifest that the informant has not disputed

          or denied the allegation that he does not work with Aditya

          hospital. It is further submitted that though appellant accepts

          that he is not a doctor but a dresser, but then there is a specific
            Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5020 of 2025(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                                         4/4




                      allegation against him that he got the daughter-in-law of the

                      informant admitted in his clinic which he was running at

                      Ghazipur and when the condition of the victim deteriorated after

                      delivery of the child born based on cesarean operation, it

                      appears that the appellant was not in a position to handle the

                      same and thus the victim died. It is also submitted that in rural

                      areas, the practice is prevalent that quacks in large numbers fish

                      clients for such purposes. It is also submitted that investigation

                      of the case is continuing and if the appellant is innocent, final

                      form would be submitted, but then is not a fit case for grant of

                      anticipatory bail.

                                      6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

                      the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory

                      bail to the appellant.

                                   7. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected.



                                                               (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T