Sanjeev Nayan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1450 of 2025

------

Sanjeev Nayan Kumar, aged about 51 years, Son of Late Late Vijay Kumar Ambastha, Advocate, resident of Near S.D.O. Sadar (Banglow), Jail Hata, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamu, at present R/O Police Stadium Road, Samachar Varsha Premises, Majer More, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamu Jharkhand

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Prity Kumari, D/O Late Jagdishwari Dayal, Bye-pass Road, Sudna, P.O. & P/S. Daltonganj, District- Palamu .... .... .... Opposite Parties

¶8

------

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Niladri S. Mukharjee, Advocate For the State : Ms. Bandana Sinha, Addl.P.P.

¶11

Order No.03 Dated-10-03-2025

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.50 of 2001 registered under Section 420/465/467/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

This is the second journey of the petitioner for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner, was earlier rejected by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 19.03.2008 passed in A.B.A. No.2222 of 2007.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner thereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 08.10.2010 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6758 of 2008, directed the petitioner to file a regular bail before the trial court within four weeks from 08.10.2010 and also directed that the petitioner’s application for regular bail shall be considered/decided by the trial court, uninfluenced by the disposal of the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶16

¶17

Court of India but the petitioner did not make any prayer for regular bail before the trial court; in terms of the order dated 08.10.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the said Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6758 of 2008.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that subsequently after ten years, the petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No.2034 of 2020 in this court and the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order staying the proceedings of the complaint case No.50 of 2001 and when the said order was in operation, the petitioner appeared before the trial court and filed an affidavit with the order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2034 of 2020 that the further proceedings of complaint case No.50 of 2001 was stayed by this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Cr.M.P. No.2034 of 2020 has been disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2024, by which this court has quashed and set aside the order dated 26.07.2018, which was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj but still the petitioner did not appear before the trial court nor made any prayer for regular bail, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; of which order, the petitioner was well aware of but instead filed this anticipatory bail application. It is also submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties but the complainant is not appearing before the trial court. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶19

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that since the petitioner has violated the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and has not prayed for regular bail before the trial court and there is no change in circumstances; hence, the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶20

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that since the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has earlier been rejected by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on merit and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on being approached by

¶21

¶22

the petitioner, directed the petitioner to pray for regular bail before the trial court but as yet in violation of the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioner has not prayed for regular bail before the trial court; hence, this court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in the absence of any change in circumstances, under which his anticipatory bail Application was earlier rejected and in view of conduct of the petitioner in not adhering to and complying with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6758 of 2008.

¶23

Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application, being without any merit, is dismissed.

¶24

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶25

Saroj/

¶26

Sanjeev Nayan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Nayan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sumit Kumar Choudhari @ Sumit Kumar Choudhari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Gautam Vs the State of Jharkhand