Reena Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3808 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Reena Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                            2025:JHHC:15012


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           A.B.A. No.2878 of 2025
                                     ------
     Reena Kumari, D/o Dilip Sahu, R/o Gayitri Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Khunti,
     District Khunti, Jharkhand.                        ... ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
     1.    The State of Jharkhand.
     2.    Rasbihari Ganjhu, S/o late Bahur Ram Ganjhu, R/o Village
           Dahugutu, P.O., P.S. & District Khunti.
                                                 ... ... Opposite Parties
                                     ------
                       CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.

-----

03/ 10.06.2025

Heard the parties.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been

preferred by the petitioner apprehending her arrest in connection

with Complaint Case No.31 of 2017, for offences under Sections

420, 468, 469, 506 & 34 IPC. The case is presently pending before

the Court of learned CJM at Khunti.

3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the

prayer for anticipatory bail.

4. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is of

fraudulently registering the land of the complainant in his name.

5. Admitted fact is that the case arises out of a complaint.

Further, the cognizance has already been taken in this case.

6. In a complaint case, there is no question of custodial

interrogation. The only fact which the Court has to be assured of is

whether the accused will face the trial or not or whether there is

any chance of tampering with the evidence.

2025:JHHC:15012

7. Further, the impugned order does not suggest any of

the aforesaid situation. Thus, the petitioner is directed to appear

before the learned Trial Court, who will consider the aforesaid fact

and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law taking into

consideration 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,

Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &

Another, reported in 2024 (9) SCC 198.

8. With the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory Bail

Application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Prashant. Cp-3