Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Kumar Sahu @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4096 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Kumar Sahu @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite ... on 19 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                        2025:JHHC:16215


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         A.B.A. No.3198 of 2025
                                  ------
     Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Kumar Sahu @ Niranjan Sahu, son
     of Baijnath Sahu, resident of Dhora Toli Lohardaga, PO and PS
     Lohardaga, District Lohardaga              ... ... Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.                ... ... Opposite Party(s)
                                  ------
                     CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

-----

05/ 19.06.2025

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 for offences registered under Sections 85/115(2)/117(2)/351(3)/352/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in connection with Lohardaga Mahila PS Case No. 5 of 2025.

3. In this case maximum punishment for the offences are seven years or less.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices under section 35(3) BNSS has been issued to the petitioner which the petitioner has complied with by appearing before the investigating officer.

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

6. Since the petitioner complied with the notice under section 35(3) of BNSS by appearing before the investigating officer, I am of the opinion that there is no eminent threat of the petitioner being arrested. Further as per the learned counsel for the petitioner no warrant of arrest has been issued.

7. Considering the fact that there is no apprehension of the

2025:JHHC:16215 petitioner being arrested, this case is not maintainable at this stage.

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

9. The petitioner should take steps as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another" reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 and appear before the court concerned.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Tanuj/Cp-3