JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 4 not to execute production warrant issued by any court either within the State of Jharkhand or outside the State of Jharkhand and for a direction upon the respondents to permit one of the blood relatives of the petitioner to stay with him and attend him during his treatment in the hospital. He has made a further prayer for a direction upon the respondents to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an accused has all the natural, human and fundamental rights which every citizen of the country can claim and while so, the respondents cannot deny permission to the petitioner for his treatment in the hospital in the company of one of his family members. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of “State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy & others” reported in (2000) 5 SCC 712 , to fortify the aforesaid contention. 3. In the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Medininagar, District-Palamu-respondent no. 4, it has been disclosed that the petitioner was provided medical treatment at RIMS from where he was discharged on 29.08.2018. He was further sent to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi for further treatment where he was directed to undergo further investigation on 16.10.2018. In the above facts, the petitioner cannot complain that he has not been provided proper medical facilities by the respondents. It is stated that there are as many as 6 criminal cases lodged against the petitioner but he has been made an accused only in one case registered within the State of Jharkhand which is Complaint Case No. 1384 of 2015 and in that case he has been granted bail vide order dated 07.09.2018 in B.A. No. 6941 of 2018. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned S.C. (Mines) appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioner, however, has not been released on bail because he has failed to furnish sureties. 5. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned S.C. (Mines) appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioner, however, has not been released on bail because he has failed to furnish sureties. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been granted bail in Complaint Case No. 1384 of 2015 which is the only case registered within the State of Jharkhand, if he furnishes bail bonds shall be released on bail and thus would be at liberty to avail medical treatment at the place of his choice and, therefore, no direction can be issued in this writ petition. 6. Other prayer made by the petitioner pertains to the cases filed outside the State of Jharkhand. In view of the above facts, W.P. (Cr.) No. 231 of 2018 is dismissed.