Kausher Khatun @ Kaushar Khatoon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4011 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kausher Khatun @ Kaushar Khatoon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                        2025:JHHC:15879


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         A.B.A. No.6857 of 2024
                                  ------
     1.Kausher Khatun @ Kaushar Khatoon, wife of Alimuddin,
     resident of 2441, H-19, Kanke Road, Bhitta Basti, Misir Gonda
     @ Pahargonda, PO Kanke, PS Gonda, District Ranchi
     2.Tanjeela Naz @ Tanjeela Naaz, daughter of Md. Hasib,
     resident of near Haara Masjid, Bhitta Basti, Misir Gonda @
     Pahargonda, PO Kanke, PS Gonda, District Ranchi
     3.Aasiya Perween, daughter of Md. Imdadulla Ansari, resident
     of New Road, Millat Colony, PO and PS Lohardaga, District
     Lohardaga                                    ... ... Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand.
     2.Nazib Ali, son of late Wahid Ali, resident of Bhitta, PO Kanke,
     PS Gonda, District Ranchi               ... ... Opposite Party(s)
                                  ------
                     CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.

-----

04/ 17.06.2025

Heard the parties.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for offences registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 4928 of 2019.

3. During course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this case arises out of complaint and after cognizance has been taken, the petitioners have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail on receipt of summons.

4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

5. Admittedly since the case arises out of a complaint and cognizance has already been taken thus this case will fall within the category-A of the situations categorized by the Hon'ble

2025:JHHC:15879 Supreme Court in the case of "Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another" reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court the following course of actions should be taken by the Court concerned in case of category-A offences:

"Category A After filing of charge-sheet/complaint taking of cognizance

(a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through lawyer.

(b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then bailable warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

(c) NBW on failure to appear despite issuance of bailable warrant.

(d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a bailable warrant/summons without insisting physical appearance of the accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

(e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided."

6. Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners should appear before the court concerned and file necessary bonds subject to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Tanuj/Cp-3