Fazlul @ Fazlu Ansari @ Faijul vs The State Of Jharkhand. ....... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4184 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Fazlul @ Fazlu Ansari @ Faijul vs The State Of Jharkhand. ....... Opp. ... on 23 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                                            2025:JHHC:16612

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        A.B.A. No. 405 of 2025
               1. Fazlul @ Fazlu Ansari @ Faijul, son of Hatim Mia @ Ansari
               2. Hatim Miya @ Hatim Ansari, son of Ali Mohammad
                  Both are residents of illage Narodih, P.O.- Gokula, P.S. Narayanpur, District-
                  Jamtara.                                                       ...... Petitioner(s).
                                                   Versus
                  The State of Jharkhand.                                   ....... Opp. Party(s).
                                                   ------
                         CORAM       :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate.

           For the State               :    Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P.
                                            ........
03/23.06.2025:            Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 2 namely,

Hatim Miya @ Hatim Ansari has been arrested during pendency of this application. Thus, he prays to withdraw this anticipatory bail application, so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, as the same has become infructuous.

Considering the aforesaid submission, this application so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned is rendered infructuous.

Heard the parties.

It is alleged that the petitioners have stolen motorcycle of the informant. The case is thus registered under Sections 303(ii) of BNS, 2023 in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 236 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

During course of argument, learned A.P.P submits that notice under Section 35(3) BNSS has been issued to the petitioners.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is yet to receive the aforesaid notice.

Considering the aforesaid submission of the State, it appears that notice under Section 35(3) BNSS has been issued, thus, it is clear that the police is not having intention to arrest the petitioner No. 1.

In that view, I direct petitioner No. 1 to comply the notice issued under Section 35(3) BNSS by appearing before the Investigating Officer, thereafter take appropriate steps in terms of Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 as well as the observation made in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in (2024) 9 SCC 198, as the punishable offence is much less than seven years.

Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.

    Anu/-C.P.-3                                                                      (ANANDA SEN, J.)