Gopal Krishna Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3968 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Gopal Krishna Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                2025:JHHC:15745


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           A.B.A. No.6728 of 2024
                                     ------
     Gopal Krishna Tiwari, S/o Late Shyam Mohan Tiwari, R/o Moh.
     Rajapara, Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), District Pakur.
                                                         ... ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
     1.    The State of Jharkhand.
     2.    Monika Haldar Dutta, W/o Late Sanjay Dutta, R/o Arvind
           Colony, P.O. + P.S. English Bazar, District Malda (West
           Bengal).
                                                 ... ... Opposite Parties
                                     ------
                      CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

     For the Petitioner(s)    :   Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
     For the State            :   Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
                                  Ms. Abha Verma, Advocate
                                     -----


06/ 16.06.2025

                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 his arrest in connection

with Complaint Case No.261 of 2023, for offences under Sections

420 and 506 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court

of learned ACJM, Pakur.

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

counsel representing the informant oppose the prayer for

anticipatory bail.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he

defrauded the complainant and took Rs.15,00,000/-, on the

pretext of selling his ancestral land which was not even recorded

in the name of petitioner and was recorded in the name of some

other person.

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

2025:JHHC:15745

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.

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