Jharkhand High Court

Krishna Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 May, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                     2025:JHHC:13290
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   A.B.A. No. 2604 of 2025
                                         -----
         Krishna Kumar Singh, S/o Pawai, R/o Pawai, P.O.- Padeybara, P.S.- Chauparan,
         District- Hazaribag                          .... Petitioner(s).
                                                 Versus
         1.The State of Jharkhand
         2.Anant Kumar Anand, S/o Kishori Sharma, R/o Village- Pansalwa, P.O.- Chatra,
         P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra                              ... Respondent(s)
                                         ------
                CORAM        :     SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

......

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anjani Nandan, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl. PP .........

02/ 02.05.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. 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 apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No.109 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Khunti.

3. There is an allegation that petitioner has cheated for the amount.

4. During course of argument, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the State that notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS has been issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner has yet to appear before the police.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will appear before the police, but he needs an interim protection.

6. There is no question of granting any interim protection because there is no threat to the petitioner that he will be arrested. The notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS has been issued which clearly suggest that the police is not intending to arrest the petitioner. When there is no threat of arrest in my opinion this anticipatory bail application is also not maintainable. Since 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 is being followed by the Investigating Officer in this case, I am of the opinion that petitioner should appear before the Investigating Officer and comply with notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

7. It is expected that the Investigating Officer will not arrest his.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./