Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite ... on 18 June, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:15965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.6997 of 2024
------
1.Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan Kumar Mandal, son of
Nawal Mandal, village Nawahi, PO Hanuman Nagar, PS
Sursand, Anchal Sursand, Ward No. 5, Sarkhandio Bitha,
District Sitamarhi, Bihar
2.Meena Devi, wife of Nawal Mandal, village Nawahi, PO
Hanuman Nagar, PS Sursand, Achal Sursand, Ward No. 5,
Sarkhandio Bitha, District Sitamarhi, Bihar
3.Antra Singh Priyanka @ Priyanka Kumari, daughter of Nawal
Mandal, village Nawahi, PO Hanuman Nagar, PS Sursand,
Anchal Sursand, Ward No. 5, Sarkhandio Bitha, District
Sitamarhi, Bihar ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite Party(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate.
Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
For OP No.2 : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate
Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate
-----
04/ 18.06.2025
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 379, 406, 504 r/w section
34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate at Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case
No. 1108 of 2023.
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
2025:JHHC:15965
cognizance has already been taken thus this case will fall within
the category-A of the situations categorized by the Hon'ble
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
