Jharkhand High Court
Pintu Kumar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite ... on 9 June, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:14765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.2754 of 2025
------
Pintu Kumar Ram, son of Bhuneshwar Ram, resident of near
Hanuman Mandir, village Banadag, PS Katkamdag, PO Sultana,
District Hazaribag, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite Party(s)
------
CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
-----
03/ 09.06.2025
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 115(2), 117(2), 127(1), 304, 351(2),
85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before learned A.C.J.M.,
Hazaribag in connection with Lohsinghna PS Case No. 157 of
2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire
dispute arose between the husband and the wife, as the wife is
actively involved in the social media by creating reels, which is
creating matrimonial discord between the parties. He submits
that the petitioner had never demanded any amount as dowry.
4. During course of argument he submits that the offences
are punishable for seven years or less, and in fact this case is
covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in "Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another" reported
in (2014) 8 SCC 273. He also submits that till date the
petitioner did not receive any notice under section 35(3) of
BNSS.
5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail.
6. After going through the impugned order and the FIR, I
2025:JHHC:14765
find that the case is registered under sections 115(2), 117(2),
127(1), 304, 351(2), 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The
impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, VI, Hazaribag doesn't remotely suggest as to whether
the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another" reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51
has been complied with or not. In the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Satender Kumar Antil" (supra) the
conclusions have been laid down in paragraph no. 100.
Paragraph no. 100.3 of the aforesaid judgment clearly
mandates that Courts will have to satisfy themselves on the
compliance of section 41 and 41A of Cr.PC [now section 35(3)
of BNSS]. Any non-compliance will entitle the accused for grant
of bail. In my view, this satisfaction of the Court in respect of
compliance of section 41 and 41A of Cr.PC [now section 35(3)
of BNSS] must be reflected in the impugned order of regular
bail or anticipatory bail, while the same is being decided by the
Trial Court concerned or the Sessions Judge. This is necessary
and mandatory. Paragraph no. 100.3 of the judgment makes it
clear that non-compliance would entitled the accused for grant
of bail. Thus, it is more necessary for the Courts concerned to
incorporate in their orders, be it regular bail or anticipatory
bail, about the compliance of the provisions of the aforesaid
sections.
7. Considering what has been held above when I go through
the impugned order, I do not find that the provisions of section
41A of Cr.PC [now section 35(3) of BNSS] has been complied
with.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even
notice under section 35(3) of BNSS corresponding to 41A of
Cr.PC has not yet been issued to the petitioner. The case arises
from an FIR which was registered on 06.09.2024 and the
impugned order is dated 21.03.2025. Once the FIR has been
lodged and is sent to the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer
2025:JHHC:14765
has to submit a report whether it is necessary to take the
accused in custody or not.
9. In the case of "Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
Another" reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, later on relied upon
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Md. Asfak Alam
vs. State of Jharkhand and Another" reported in (2023) 8
SCC 632 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 11.5 has
directed as under:
"11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded
to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the
institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which
may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the
district for the reasons to be recorded in writing."
Further in paragraph no. 11.6 the following has been
mandated:
"11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A Cr.PC
be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of
institution of the case, which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be
recorded in writing."
10. These two directions cannot be read in isolation. The
same has to be read in conjunction with the directions given by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 100.3 of
"Satender Kumar Antil" (supra) also.
11. As per the petitioner no notice under section 41A Cr.PC
[now section 35(3) of BNSS] has been issued to the petitioner.
In that case, in terms of paragraph no. 100.3 of the judgment
of "Satender Kumar Antil" (supra) the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail. Thus, the petitioner is directed to appear
before the court concerned within three weeks and file
necessary bonds before the Court concerned.
12. All the Courts within the jurisdiction of this High Court are
directed to comply with the aforesaid order henceforth by
incorporating in their respective order about compliance of
section 41 and 41A Cr.PC [now section 35(3) of BNSS] in terms
of paragraph no. 100.3 of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "Satender Kumar Antil"
2025:JHHC:14765
(supra).
13. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is disposed
of.
14. Let this order be circulated to all the court concerned for
strict compliance, failing which this Court will be constrained to
invoke paragraph no. 11.8 of the judgment of "Arnesh
Kumar" (supra) in appropriate case.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Tanuj/Cp-3
