Sanjay Kumar Niraj vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4359 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Kumar Niraj vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 30 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                                 2025:JHHC:17153 )


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  A.B.A. No. 3448 of 2025
             1.Sanjay Kumar Niraj, S/o Baleshwar Yadav
             2. Meena Devi, W/o Masudan Singh
                     Both R/o Vill- Dhab, PO: Satgawan & PS Satgawan, District Koderma.
                                                                        ..... Petitioner(s).
                                                 Versus
             The State of Jharkhand                                     ..... Opposite Party
                                               ------
                    CORAM          :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

             For the Petitioner(s) :      Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate
             For the State         :      Ms. Mohua Palit, APP
                                                 -----
02/30.06.2025:      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 Satgawan PS Case No. 23 of 2025, for the offences punishable under sections 316(2), 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,1 st Class, Koderma.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

3. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

4. It is alleged that the petitioners have illegally withdrawn money from the bank account of Saraswati Vahini Mata Samiti Utkramit Madhya Vidhaylaya, Dhab.

5. During course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have complied with the notices issued to them under section 35(3) of BNSS and the police did not think it proper to arrest the petitioners.

6. Since the petitioners have appeared before the police in compliance of notice under section 35(3) of BNSS and they have not been arrested it clearly suggests that there is no apprehension of their arrest.

7. The petitioners should appear before the court concerned, who will pass order in terms of the judgment passed by the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of "Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr." reported in (2021)10 SCC 773.

8. Thus, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/