Patna High Court
Dr. Dhiraj Bharti @ Dr. Dhiraj Kumar @ Dhiraj YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the offence is non‑compoundable and the petitioners' professional status could not be verified.
Summary
The petitioners, who claim to be doctors, were charged under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for culpable homicide and related offences, as well as under the Clinical Establishment Act, 2010 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, following the death of a patient treated at their clinic. They applied for anticipatory bail, asserting innocence, a compromise with the complainant, and willingness to comply with bail conditions. The State opposed, highlighting that the offence under Section 105 BNS is non‑compoundable and questioning the petitioners' status as doctors due to lack of certification. The court noted that a compromise cannot be accepted for a non‑compoundable offence and remained doubtful about the petitioners' professional identity. Consequently, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving a non‑compoundable offence (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether a compromise petition is admissible to secure bail for a non‑compoundable offence.
- Whether the petitioners' claim of being doctors affects the bail consideration in the absence of documentary proof.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 105, 318(4), 319(2), 3(5)
- Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 — s. 15
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- non‑compoundable offence
- culpable homicide
- medical negligence
- compromise petition
- doctor identity
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27004 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2025 Thana- Bahera District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Dr. Dhiraj Bharti @ Dr. Dhiraj Kumar @ Dhiraj Yadav S/o Baliram Prasad
@ Balram Yadav R/o Village- Manjhauli, PS- Wazirganj, Distt.- Gaya
2. Dr. Sumitra Devi @ Dr. Sumitra Yadav W/o Rajeev Kumar R/o Mohalla -
Naya Bazar, Sherghati, Distt.- Gaya now Gayaji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nukul Kumar S/o Bado Yadav R/o Gejna Navadih, P.S.- Hunterganj, Distt.-
Chatra
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md.Abu Shajar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025, dated
10.12.2025, lodged under Sections 105, 319(2), 318(4) & 3(5)
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
“BNS, 2023”), under Sections 40, 41 & 42 of the Clinical
Establishment (Registration and Regulation Act), 2010 and
under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956,
pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sherghati, Gaya.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27004 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
the present petitioners alleging that the petitioners were running
a clinic, and the informant had approached them for the
treatment of his wife. It is alleged that after the operation, the
wife became unconscious and did not regain consciousness,
after which an injection was administered to her. In the evening,
another injection was given to the informant’s wife. The
informant became anxious as his wife remained unconscious.
Subsequently, both the petitioners, along with the informant’s
wife, went to Magadh Hospital, from where both petitioners
fled, and at the said hospital the doctor declared the informant’s
wife dead. When the informant reached the clinic, he found that
the signboard had been removed and both petitioners had fled
after switching off their mobile phones. Thereafter, the
informant filed the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel further submits that a compromise has taken place and
the said compromise was filed before the Additional Sessions
Judge. It has also been mentioned that the petitioners belong to a
respectable family and they are ready to fulfil all the conditions
of the bail bond, if bail is granted to them.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27004 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that both the
petitioners have shown themselves as doctors before this Court,
but no certificate of a doctor has been annexed with the bail
application, nor is anything stated regarding their identity.
6. From the compromise petition, it transpires that the
petitioners have described themselves as village doctors. Section
105 of the BNS, 2023, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, is not a compoundable offence. Therefore, the
compromise petition cannot be accepted, and on the basis of the
compromise petition, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
7. This Court, while considering the bail application,
is still doubtful as to whether the petitioners are really doctors or
not.
8. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is
not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is
hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…