Onkar Vishwakarma @ Omkar Vishwakarma vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 473 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Onkar Vishwakarma @ Omkar Vishwakarma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                        2025:JHHC:17262


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         A.B.A. No.3476 of 2025
                                  ------
     Onkar Vishwakarma @ Omkar Vishwakarma, S/o Sri Harendra
     Vishwakarma, resident of Ward No. 6, Mahthadih, PO
     Domchanch Bazar, PS Domchandh, District Koderma
                                               ... ... Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand.
     2.Pawan Kumar Singh, son of Rajkishore Singh, R/o Nagar
     Panchayat Domchanch, PO and PS Domchanch, District
     Koderma                             ... ... Opposite Party(s)
                                  ------
                     CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Md. Asghar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, 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 385, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of J.M. 1st Class at Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 1369 of 2021.

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

4. The case arises of private complaint. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had prepared forged document and trespassed over the land of the complainant and also demanded Rs. 5 lakh as extortion. Cognizance has already been taken and summons have been issued to the petitioner.

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 in terms of the judgment passed in "Satender Kumar Antil

2025:JHHC:17262 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