Mihir Chandra Saha vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1013 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mihir Chandra Saha vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite ... on 21 July, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                            2025:JHHC:19860


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          A.B.A. No.3867 of 2025
                                   ------
    Mihir Chandra Saha, S/o Late Narayan Chandra Saha, aged about
    56 years, R/o Vill. Kunuri, P.O. Kunuri, P.S. Saithia, District-
    Birbhum, State-West Bengal.                        ... ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
    The State of Jharkhand.                 ... ... Opposite Party
                                   ------
                      CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

    For the Petitioner(s)   :    Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate
                                 Mr. Piyush Kr. Roy, Advocate
                                 Mr. Ayush, Advocate
                                 Mr. Adiya Mishra, Advocate
    For the State           :    Ms. Lily Sahay, APP
                                    -----
05/ 21.07.2025
                 Heard the parties.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 &

484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has

been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in

connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.60/2024, for offence under

Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is

punishable for a period of seven years or less. The case is presently

pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he and one

Sarveshwar Hansda are friends-cum-business partner of informant.

He submits that due to business relationship, informant invested

huge amount. Thereafter, when the informant demanded his money

back, the accused persons refused to return the money and

threatened and misbehaved with the informant.

4. During the course of arguments, Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra,

learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP submits that the

notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued to the petitioner

and the petitioner has appeared before the I.O. and complied with 2025:JHHC:19860

the same.

5. Once a notice under Section 35(3) has been issued, it

is presumed that the I.O. does not have any intention to arrest the

petitioner. Further, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and has

complied with the notice and he was not arrested. This fact

strengthens the aforesaid presumption that there is no

apprehension of the petitioner being arrested. That being so, filing

of this anticipatory bail application is misconceived.

6. The petitioner should cooperate with the investigation

and will appear before the I.O. as and when required and thereafter

take appropriate action in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of "Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC

51 as well as the observation made in the case of Satender Kumar

Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported

in (2021) 10 SCC 773".

7. In view of the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory

Bail Application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Sandeep. Cp-3