Jharkhand High Court
Md. Riyaj vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party(S) on 6 May, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:13579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2437 of 2025
1. Md. Riyaj, son of Late Md. Farook
2. Kanija Khatoon, wife of Late Mod. Farook
Both are the residents of village Budhiyakhad, P.O- S.P. Colliery, P.S. Giridih
(Muffasil), District- Giridih, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
........
05/06.05.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for grant of
anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, as the petitioners have been allegedly implicated in a criminal
case registered under Section(s) 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 61(2) of BNS and
Section(s) 3/ 4 of the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Marriage Act, 2019 in
connection with Giridih(Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 24/2025, pending in the Court of
learned SDJM, Giridih.
2. Ms. Kumari Nilima, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) is present in Court. She
submits that she had issued two notices to the petitioners under Section 35(3) BNSS,
but the petitioners have not appeared. She also submits that 3 rd notices will be served
very soon and if the petitioners do not comply the same, steps should be taken to
arrest them.
3. This Court has put specific query that if the petitioners now appear in
compliance of the second notice, served upon them under Section 35(3) BNSS,
whether the petitioners will be arrested or not, on which she submits that there is no
question to arrest the petitioners, if they appear.
4. Considering the specific submission of the I.O., I feel that there is no
imminent threat of arrest of the petitioners. Thus the petitioners should cooperate in the
investigation and appear before the I.O. This application, thus, disposed of.
5. Before parting, I had put specific question to the I.O whether she is
aware about the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, which deals with arrest of
person(s), namely the judgments in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
and Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Md. Asfak
Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 632, she
submits that in details, they have not been made aware of the said judgments.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, I direct the Director General of
Police, State of Jharkhand, to ensure that a proper training session be organized to
sensitize all the I.Os. Of the State of Jharkhand, about the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and
Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 632.
7. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the office of the Advocate
General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi as well as the Director General of Police, State
of Jharkhand for doing the needful.
8. Appearance of the I.O. is dispensed with for the present.
Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
