Vivek Kumar @ Mangal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 576 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vivek Kumar @ Mangal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 July, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                        2025:JHHC:18069


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         A.B.A. No.1939 of 2025
                                  ------
     Vivek Kumar @ Mangal, S/o Deepak Prasad, R/o Basukinath,
     PO and PS Jarmundi, District Dumka, Jharkhand
                                              ... ... Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand.
     2.Uma Rao, S/o late Arjun Rao, R/o village Basukinath, PO
     Basukinath, PS Jarmundi, District Dumka
                                           ... ... Opposite Party(s)
                                  ------
                     CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanath Kumar Jha, A.P.P.

-----

03/ 07.07.2025

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 420, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance has been taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dumka in connection with Complaint (PCR) Case No. 2162 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 appear before the court concerned. The concerned court will pass appropriate order in

2025:JHHC:18069 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