Amit Kachap @ Amit Kachhap @ Amit Roshan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4060 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Amit Kachap @ Amit Kachhap @ Amit Roshan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                             2025:JHHC:16417


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          A.B.A. No.7131 of 2024
                                   ------
    Amit Kachap @ Amit Kachhap @ Amit Roshan Kashap, S/o Late
    Walter Kachhap.                                    ... ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand.
    2. Monika Aind, D/o Late Domnik Aind, W/o Amit Roshan Kachhap.
                                                ... ... Opposite Parties
                                   ------
                      CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.B. Gupta, Advocate Md. Imteyaz Asraf, Advocate Md. Aadil Ali Nomani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P.

-----

06/ 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 petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection

with Complaint Case No.131 of 2023, for offences under Sections

323, 341, 506, 498A, 379 and 307 IPC. The case is presently

pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Koderma.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of torturing the

complainant for demand of dowry.

4. Admitted fact is that this case arises out of a complaint.

Cognizance has been taken in this case and summons have also

been issued.

5. 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:16417

6. Since the cognizance has already been taken in this

case and summons have also been issued, there is no apprehension

of arrest of the petitioner being arrested.

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 and Arnesh Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

8. With the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory Bail

Application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Prashant. Cp-3