Disposed¶18

Tapan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jun 2025A.B.A./3284/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application disposed; BNSS 2023 Sections 482, 484; IPC Sections 376, 493, 506/34; complaint case (CC No. 1820 of 2023, S.D.J.M. Jamshedpur) with cognizance taken and summons issued; Category-A procedure per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) 10 SCC 773; petitioner directed to appear before trial court for appropriate order; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Ananda Sen, J.; 17.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail neither granted nor refused; application disposed of with a direction that the petitioner appear before the Court concerned, which will pass an appropriate order considering that the case arises out of a complaint and the petitioner is appearing after issuance of summons. ¶18

Tapan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 376, 493, 506/34 IPC in Complaint Case No. 1820 of 2023, should be granted anticipatory bail under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶8

Court's answer

Cases arising out of a complaint in which cognizance has been taken and summons issued are covered under Category-A of the categorization laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner should appear before the Court concerned, which will pass an appropriate order considering that the case arises out of a complaint and the petitioner is appearing after issuance of summons; on this basis the anticipatory bail application was disposed of without granting or refusing anticipatory bail.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Jharkhand High Court (Ananda Sen, J.), A.B.A. No. 3284 of 2025, decided 17.06.2025. Tapan Kumar sought anticipatory bail under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 376, 493, 506/34 IPC in Complaint Case No. 1820 of 2023 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur, in which cognizance had been taken and summons issued. Relying on Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the Court held that complaint cases in which summons are issued after cognizance fall under Category-A, and disposed of the application, directing the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned, which will pass an appropriate order considering that the case arises out of a complaint and the petitioner is appearing after issuance of summons.

¶1

2025:JHHC:15805

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3284 of 2025

¶3

Tapan Kumar, S/o Late Dhirendra Nath Praanik, R/o H.No. 87, Next to Medical Store, Near Block More, Gourangkocha, P.O.- Patkum, P.S.- Ichagarh, DistrictSaraikela- Kharsawan, Jharkhand

¶4

.... Petitioner(s).

¶5

Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.X … Opp. Party(s)

¶6

------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, AddI. P.P.

¶7

04/ 17.06.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

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 Section 376, 493, 506/34 of IPC in connection with Complaint Case No.1820 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur.

¶9

Admittedly, this case arises out of a complaint, in which, cognizance was taken and summons were issued. These type of cases where summon is issued after taking cognizance in complaint case are covered under Category-A as categorized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another , reported in ( 2021) 10 SCC 773. In paragraph 3 of the aforesaid judgment category-A has been categorized as hereunder:-

¶10

Category A

¶11

After filing of charge-sheet/complaint taking of cognizance

¶12

(a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through lawyer.

¶13

(b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then bailable warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

¶14

(c) NBW on failure to appear despite issuance of bailable warrant.

¶15

(d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a bailable warrant/summons without insisting physical appearance of the accused, if such an application

¶16

is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

¶17

(e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

¶18

Considering the fact that this case arises out of a complaint. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 5. Petitioner should appear before the Court concerned and the Court will pass an appropriate order considering the fact that the case arises out of a complaint and the petitioner is appearing after issuance of summons.

¶19

R.S./

Tapan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arindam Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sharwan Mirdha Alias Bijay Kumar Mirdha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Minz Alias Sunil Minj @ Sushil Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Firoz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Jain Vs the State of Jharkhand