Vivekanand Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 587 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vivekanand Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 July, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                           2025:JHHC:18091 )


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       A.B.A. No.3567 of 2025
                                ------
    1.    Vivekanand Jha, aged about 47 years, son of Arun Kumar
          Jhar.
    2.    Suman Sourabh, aged about 47 years, son of Ram Naresh.

                                                      ... ... Petitioners
                                     Versus
    1.     The State of Jharkhand.
    2.     Balram Prasad Singh, son of Pramod Prasad Singh, resident
           of Flat No. G+OA, Gupteshwar Complex, Bekarbandh, P.O. &
           P.S. Bekarbandh, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
                                               ... ... Opposite Parties
                                    ------
                       CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate

-----

04/ 07.07.2025 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 petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with C.P. Case No.15456 of 2023, for offence under Section 420 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned J.M. Dhanbad.

3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel

representing the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that

the case arises out of complaint where there is no scope of

investigation. Cognizance has already been taken. He submits that

the petitioners will also appear before the Court concerned during

the trial. He also submits that his client ensures that they will not

linger the trial. He refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau

of Investigation & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 as 2025:JHHC:18091 )

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

Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in

(2021) 10 SCC 773.

5. Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel representing the

informant submits that the informant has been cheated but admits

that this case arises out of a complaint and is covered by Clause A

of the categorization of the judgment of Hon'ble

"Satender.Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

& Another" reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773".

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I direct the petitioners to

appear before the Court concerned. Once the petitioners appear,

the Court will pass an appropriate order in view of the Judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender

Kumar Antil (supra).

7. In view of the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory

Bail Application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Sandeep. Cp-3