Abhay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 470 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Abhay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                        2025:JHHC:17317


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          A.B.A. No.3477 of 2025
                                    ------
     Abhay Kumar, S/o Kishori Yadav, R/o KDH Chapra Khatal
     Dakra, VTC-Dakra Colliery, PO Dakra Colliery, PS Khelari, Sub
     District Khelari, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
                                                  ... ... Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand.
     2.Kiran Devi, W/o Abhay Kumar, D/o Rajeshwar Singh,
     permanent address vill and PO Chhecha, PS Barwadih, District
     Latehar, Jharkhand, present address village and PO Dakra, PS
     Khelari, District Ranchi, Jharkhand      ... ... Opposite Party(s)
                                    ------
                      CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Md. Farhan Kibriya, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.

-----

02/ 01.07.2025

Heard the parties.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 323, 504, 506, 294, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Latehar in connection with Complaint Case No. 110 of 2024.

3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

4. This case arises out of complaint. Since the case arises out of complaint there is no question of custodial interrogation. Further cognizance has already been taken and summons have been issued.

5. Thus, considering the nature of the case which arises out of complaint and since cognizance has already been taken there is absolutely negative scope of arresting the petitioner. Thus the apprehension of the petitioner that he will be arrested is misconceived. The petitioner has to only appear answering the summons. The concerned court should pass appropriate order

2025:JHHC:17317 in terms of the judgment passed in "Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr." reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and several orders passed by this Court since cognizance has already been taken in this case.

6. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Tanuj/Cp-3