Ramadhar Kumar @ Ramadhar Bhokta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4227 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ramadhar Kumar @ Ramadhar Bhokta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                                    2025:JHHC:16694




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   A.B.A. No. 7691 of 2024

               Ramadhar Kumar @ Ramadhar Bhokta, S/o Rambriksh Bhokta, R/o village
               Dhaneta, PO: Bankebazar, PS: Bankebazar, District Gaya, (Bihar), Pin 824217.
                                                                     ..... Petitioner(s).
                                              Versus
               1.The State of Jharkhand
               2.Urmila Devi, W/o Ramadhar Kumar, D/o Udeshwar Ganjhu, R/o village
               Balwa Dohar, PO + PS Partappur, District Chatra, Jharkhand
                                                                   ..... Opposite Parties
                                              ------
                           CORAM        :     SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP For the OP No.2 : Mr. Rajesh Kr.Singh, Advocate

-----

05/24.06.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioner has been allegedly implicated in connection with Complaint Case No. 383 of 2018, for the offence punishable under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Chatra.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned counsel for the State.

3. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

4. The case arises out of a complaint and the petitioner has approached this court only after cognizance has been taken and summons has been issued.

5. Thus, I find that there is no apprehension of the petitioner to be arrested, this anticipatory bail application is absolutely misconceived.

6. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Court below, who will pass order in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/