Kangresh Yadav @ Kongresh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3801 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kangresh Yadav @ Kongresh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                       2025:JHHC:14883
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  A.B.A. No. 2852 of 2025
                                        -----
        Kangresh Yadav @ Kongresh Yadav, S/o Late Sukhdev Yadav, R/o Village
        Baghmara, P.O. and P.S.- Palojori, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand
                                                                .... Petitioner(s).
                                               Versus
        1.The State of Jharkhand
        2.Gunja Devi, W/o Late Barun Yadav, R/o Village Harladangal, P.O. and P.S.-
        Palojori, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand presently residing at Jadavtola, Barmasia,
        P.O. and P.S. and District- Deoghar, Jharkhand          ... Opp. Party(s)
                                        ------

              CORAM        :         SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

        For the Petitioner(s)        : Mr. Lality Yadav, Advocate
        For the State                : Mrs. Mohua Palit, AddI. P.P.
                           .........

02/ 10.06.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 apprehending his arrest for the offences under Section 306 of IPC in connection with P.C.R. Case No.136 of 2024, arising out of Palojoria P.S. Case No.41 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madhupur.

3. The case is under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. For the purpose of the order, which I am passing it is immaterial to deal with the facts of the F.I.R.

5. The important aspect in this case is that the F.I.R. was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the police investigated and submitted the final report in favour of the petitioner exonerating him. Once the petitioner got exonerated, a protest petition was filed by the informant which was treated to be a complaint and after examining the enquiry witnesses, the Court took cognizance of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter approached for the grant of anticipatory bail.

7. When cognizance has already been taken that too after protest petition was filed which predated by exonerating the petitioner during the enquiry, the petitioner should have appeared and filed his bonds in terms of 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.

8. Be it noted that in case where cognizance is taken on complaint there is no question of interrogation or even custodial interrogation as the stage of investigation particularly in this type of cases has already came to an end.

9. Thus, I direct the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned, which has issued the summons and take necessary steps to file his bail bonds as per the condition of Court concerned.

10. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./