Shakil Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand. … … Opposite … on 30 June, 2025

0
2


Jharkhand High Court

Shakil Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand. … … Opposite … on 30 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                            2024:JHHC:17109


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           A.B.A. No.3418 of 2025
                                     ------
     1.    Shakil Ahmad, S/o Sharfuddin Ansari.
     2.    Mahtab Ansari, S/o Roshan Ansari.
                 Both are R/o Village Kuchila, P.O. & P.S. Chhipadohar,
           District Latehar.
                                                       ... ... Petitioners
                                    Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.                       ... ... Opposite Party
                                     ------
                       CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

——

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.

—–

02/ 30.06.2025
Heard the parties.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred
by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for offences under
Sections 75, 76, 77, 351 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.

3. During the course of argument, learned A.P.P.
representing the State, after going through the supervision note
submits that during investigation, the supervising Authority found
that there is no application of Sections 75, 76 and 77 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as many of the witnesses did not
support the facts which attracts the aforesaid Sections. He further
on query, after going through the case diary, submits that there is
no compliance of Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as no Notice was
issued to the petitioners under the aforesaid Sections, considering
the fact that the offences are punishable for seven years or less.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another
, reported in
2022 (10) SCC 51, has held that there must be compliance of
Section 35(3) of the BNSS (earlier Section 41A Cr.P.C.), where the
offences are punishable for a period of seven years or less. In the
aforesaid judgment, at para-100.3, it has been held that if there is
no compliance of Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. (now Section

1
2024:JHHC:17109

35(3) of the BNSS), the accused is entitled for grant of bail.

4. In this case, since the offences are punishable for a
period of seven years or less and in fact in the supervision note, it
has been held that there is no material to attract Sections 75, 76
and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and further
admittedly there was no compliance of Section 35(3) of the BNSS,
I am inclined to allow this application.

5. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands
allowed. The petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender
before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order and on the event of their surrender or
arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the
like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Chhipadohar P.S.
Case No.03 of 2025, subject to the condition that one of the bailers
should be a close relative of the petitioners and other should be a
resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in
his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having
share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial
Court indicating his share in the property. The petitioners will
appear before the concerned Court and furnish the bonds to the
satisfaction of Court concerned.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Prashant. Cp-3

2



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here