Vikram Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 204 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vikram Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                            2025:JHHC:13747


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           A.B.A. No.6092 of 2024
                                     ------
     Vikram Choudhary, son of late Sitaram Choudhary, resident of
     Gerabari Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Gerabari, District Katihar (Bihar).
                                                         ... ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand.
     2. Tanmoy Mukherjee, son of Dilip Mukherjee, resident of
         Bagtipara, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur (T), District Pakur,
         Jharkhand.
                                                  ... ... Opposite Parties
                                     ------
                      CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nitu Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, A.P.P. Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate

-----

07/ 06.05.2025

This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been

preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection

with Complaint Case No.17 of 2024, for offences under Sections

406 and 420 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court

of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.

2. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is of not

returning the total loan amount which the complainant had given

to him.

3. Admitted fact is that the case arises out of a complaint.

Cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and summon has

already been issued.

4. In a complaint case, there is no question of custodial

interrogation. The only fact which the Court has to be assured of is

whether the accused will face the trial or not or whether there is

2025:JHHC:13747

any chance of tampering with the evidence.

5. Since the petitioner has been summoned, I am of the

opinion that there is no apprehension of the petitioner being

arrested.

6. Further, the impugned order does not suggest any of

the aforesaid situation. Thus, the petitioner is directed to appear

before the learned Trial Court, who will consider the aforesaid fact

and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law taking into

consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation & Another, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51,

Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &

Another, reported in 2024 (9) SCC 198 and Arnesh Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

7. With the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory Bail

Application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3