[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Abhinav Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                      2025:JHHC:37795
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                         A.B.A. No. 6844 of 2025
                                  ----

Abhinav Singh, aged about 33 years, son of Sri Anil Kumar Singh @ Rajesh Singh, resident of Village Bairiya, PO Basaura, PS Lesliganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand, PIN 822118 .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Amitu Singh @ Dolly, wife of Abhinav Singh and daughter of Jai Prakash Singh, presently residing at Village Sudna, PO I.E.Sudna, PS-Town Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand, PIN 822102 .... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

          For the Petitioner             :-     Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
          For the State                  :-     Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate
          For the Informant/O.P.No.2     :-     Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
                                         ----
4/16.12.2025          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

respondent State as well as learned counsel for the O.P.no.2/informant.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with

Mahila P.S. Case No.05 of 2025, for offence registered under section 85,

115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352/3(5) of BNS, 2023 and sections

3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in court of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Palamau.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is

husband of the informant and serving in the Indian Air Force on the rank of

Squadron Leader and presently posted at 2257 Squadron, Air Force Station,

Naliya, Kutch in the State of Gujarat. He further submits that the wife is

O.P.No.2/ informant is a dental surgeon (BDS, MDS, Reg. No.5908/A) and at

present she is a Lecturer at Vananchal Dengal College, Garhwa and she also

runs a private clinic named Maa Gayatri Dental Clinic at Sudna, Daltonganj.

He then submits that the petitioner is ready to re-union if the informant will

be ready to live with him, however, the informant does not want to live with

2025:JHHC:37795 the petitioner and the family members never forced her in any way to left

the matrimonial house. He next submits that the in-laws have already been

granted anticipatory bail and the entire family members have been made

accused. He then submits that NBW was issued against the petitioner which

was challenged in Cr.Revision No.75 of 2025 before the learned Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Palamau which has been rejected. He further

submits that thereafter the petitioner has filed anticipatory bail before the

learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has directed the

petitioner to surrender and join the investigation and pursuant to that, the

petitioner has appeared before the investigating officer. However, further the

process under section 82 Cr.PC has been issued against the petitioner and in

this background, the petitioner has been compelled to file anticipatory bail

application. He submits that in light of direction made by the learned

Sessions Judge in the A.B.P. the petitioner joined the investigation and in

spite of that process under section 82 Cr.PC was issued and the petitioner's

liberty is at stake and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.

5. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that process

under section 82 Cr.PC has been issued and in view of that anticipatory bail

is not maintainable and is also being reiterated by the learned counsel for

the informant.

6. Learned counsel for the informant/ O.P.no.2 further submits that

the petitioner is required to surrender before the learned court for regular

bail in light of the anticipatory bail order of the learned Sessions Judge and

as such, this anticipatory bail application may kindly be rejected.

7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the

parties, it is an admitted position that the petitioner and the O.P.No.2/

2025:JHHC:37795 informant are husband and wife respectively, and the petitioner is presently

posted at Indian Air Force on the rank of Squadron Leader and presently

posted at 2257 Squadron, Air Force Station, Naliya, Kutch in the State of

Gujarat and the NBW was challenged by the petitioner which has been

rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter the petitioner has

moved in ABP No.1178 of 2025 and the learned Sessions Judge has directed

the petitioner to join the investigation and pursuant to that, the petitioner

has joined the investigation which has come in the order of the learned

Sessions Judge and that fact was not disputed before the learned Sessions

Judge by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecution and in view of that it is an

admitted position that the petitioner has complied the order of the learned

Sessions Judge by way of joining investigation and the anticipatory bail was

dismissed with the said observation on 12.11.2025. However, NBW was

early issued and process under section 82 Cr.PC was issued on 20.11.2025

and this anticipatory bail application has been filed on 17.11.2025 which

means prior to issuing of the process under section 82 Cr.P.C by the learned

court.

8. There is no doubt that process under section 82 Cr.P.C tightens the

hands of the Courts of passing anticipatory bail order or granting

anticipatory bail however total embargo consideration of the facts cannot

be said to be there. The Court is required to see the circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offence and the background on which such

proclamation was issued. Identical was the case before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh

[Criminal Appeal No.4564 of 2024 @ SLP. (Crl.) No.13123/2024] in

2025:JHHC:37795 which Hon'ble Supreme Court in exceptional circumstances has been

pleased to grant anticipatory bail. Identical is the situation herein.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Srikant

Upadhyay v. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, a

very pertinent observations have been made with regard to the powers

of the court to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, it

has been observed that:

"9. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan alias J.M. John Paul [(2010) 1 SCC 679; (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 879; 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1922.] .

10. When a court grants anticipatory bail what it actually does is only to make an order that in the event of arrest, the arrestee shall be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions. Taking note of the fact the said power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances and that it may cause some hindrance to the normal flow of investigation method when called upon to exercise the power under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, courts must keep reminded of the position that law aides only the abiding and certainly

2025:JHHC:37795 not its resistant. By saying so, we mean that a person, having subjected to investigation on a serious offence and upon making out a case, is included in a charge sheet or even after filing of a refer report, later, in accordance with law, the court issues a summons to a person, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. It only means that though he will still be at liberty, rather, in his right, to take recourse to the legal remedies available only in accordance with law, but not in its defiance. We will dilate this discussion with reference to the factual matrix of this case. However, we think that before dealing with the same, a small deviation to have a glance at the scope and application of the provisions under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be inappropriate...

25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of

2025:JHHC:37795 justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant."

10. A reference is also made to the case of Satender Kumar

Antil v. C.B.I. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and further this case comes

under the category-A of the said judgment.

11. A reference is also made to the case of Arnesh Kumar v.

State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

12. In view of above discussion made hereinabove and the

liberty of the petitioner, who happened to be Squadron Leader serving the

country, is at stake and this a peculiar case and the circumstances in the

instant petition are exceptional. In course of argument it has been pointed out

that the I.O. has even visited the place of posting of the petitioner for arrest.

In the case in hand, the petitioner is not absconding rather he is