Dismissed¶8

Mahendra Bhagat v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Sept 2025CR. MISC./38986/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused - illegal private hospital (Ananya Hospital, Bhaluhi Road, Kateya, Gopalganj) allegedly run by petitioner Mahendra Bhagat and co-accused Vikesh Kushwaha without required qualification and in defiance of rules and regulations, patients admitted on misrepresentation; offences under Ss. 318(4), 338, 336(3) B.N.S. 2023 and S. 15(3) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; Kateya P.S. Case No. 142 of 2025; petitioner at liberty to surrender and seek regular bail, Court below requested to decide same day; single judge Jitendra Kumar; Patna High Court Cr. Misc. No. 38986 of 2025, decided 15-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; liberty granted to surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, with a request to the Court below to consider any such bail application on the same day.

Mahendra Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Kateya P.S. Case No. 142 of 2025 (registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956), should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶2

Court's answer

Anticipatory bail refused: considering that the petitioner and the co-accused were running the hospital without the required qualification and in non-compliance with the rules and regulations for running a hospital, while admitting villagers, the Court was not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail; if such an application is filed, the learned Court below is requested to consider his bail application on the same day.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Jitendra Kumar, J.), by order dated 15-09-2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38986 of 2025, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Mahendra Bhagat who apprehended arrest in Kateya P.S. Case No. 142 of 2025, dated 16.03.2025, registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 338 and 336(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. As per allegation, the petitioner and co-accused Vikesh Kushwaha were running Ananya Hospital, Bhaluhi Road, Kateya (Gopalganj) illegally; despite being directed not to run the hospital, they continued doing so, and the hospital could not be sealed twice because patients, including one Sangeeta Devi, were found admitted. Refusing anticipatory bail, the Court noted that the petitioner and co-accused were running the hospital without the required qualification and compliance with the rules and regulations for running a hospital while admitting villagers. The petitioner was given liberty to surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, and the Court below was requested to consider any such application on the same day.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38986 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2025 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Mahendra Bhagat, S/o Chuman Bhagat, Resident of Vill.- Amawa, P.O and P.S.- Katyea, Distt.- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 15-09-2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶12

The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No.142 of 2025, dated16.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

¶13

As per allegation, the Petitioner and the coaccused, Vikesh Kushwaha are running an illegal hospital, namely, Ananya Hospital, Bhaluhi Road, Kateya. When the medical team went to the hospital for inspection, it was found that one patient was admitted and the hospital could not be sealed. The Petitioner and the co-accused were directed not to run the hospital but the instruction was not followed, nor any

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38986 of 2025(3) dt.15-09-2025 2/3

¶15

document was brought to the notice of the Civil Surgeon to show that they are running their hospital complying with the requirements. When the medical team again went to the hospital for sealing it, one patient, Sangeeta Devi was found to be admitted. Hence, the hospital could not be sealed again. At the time of the inspection, both the accused, including the Petitioner were present.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the Petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence because he works in the Maldives and he came back on holidays to his home.

¶17

It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

¶18

It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶19

However, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant vehemently oppose the prayer of the Petitioner for bail submitting that as per the case diary, both the accused, including he Petitioner, have taken the hospital premises on rent and they are running the hospital in

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38986 of 2025(3) dt.15-09-2025 3/3

¶21

defiance of all the rules and regulations endangering the lives of villagers. The patients are being admitted by making misrepresentation to them, regarding their qualification and authority to run the hospital. Hence, it is not a case of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the Petitioner and co-accused are running hospital without having required qualification and compliance with the rules and regulations for running hospital and admitting the villagers, I am not persuaded to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶23

However, the Petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, and if such application is filed by the Petitioner, learned Court below is requested to consider his bail application on the same day.

¶24

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)

¶25

Chandan/-

¶26

U T

Mahendra Bhagat v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Bhagat v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Kumar Karn Vs the State of Bihar, through, Secretary Deptt. of Excise, Bihar, Patna

Sanjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajababu Vs The State of Bihar

Moti Chand Chaurasia Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Jha @ Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar