The Hon’ble High Court held that in Category A cases under Para 3 of Satender Kumar Antil, where cognizance is taken and summons issued, “bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody”. The Magistrate’s action violated this principle, undermining personal liberty. The Court directed training for the Magistrate and allowed petitioners to seek modification of the earlier order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.2439 of 2025
Ruplal Rana, Vs The State of Jharkhand.
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
Dated: 03/ 11.06.2025.
This case is listed on mentioning today.
2. This application being A.B.A. No.2439 of 2025 which
arose out of a complaint and was filed after taking cognizance, was
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025. Order dated
21.04.2025 reads as hereunder:-
“This is an application filed by the
petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in
terms of sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioners
have been allegedly implicated in a criminal case
registered for the offences punishable under sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 420, 406, 467, 468, 504, 506,
380,451,452 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
in connection with Complaint Case No. 1635 of 2024,
pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Hazaribag.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
3. The learned APP opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail.
4. The present case arises out of the
complaint and cognizance has already been taken.
When the cognizance has been taken and the
petitioners have been summoned, there is no
apprehension of arrest. The petitioners have to
appear before the trial court which has issued
summons. Further, since the case arises out of
complaint, there is no question of investigation.
5. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail
application stands disposed of. The petitioners are
directed to surrender before the learned court below
who will consider his case as per law.”
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners while
mentioning submitted that one of the petitioners i.e. petitioner
No.1 – Ruplal Rana, aged about 66 years, appeared before the
learned Magistrate, in compliance of the summons. He submits that
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, 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, was also placed before the Magistrate at the time of his
appearance. It is his contention that in utter disregard of the
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil (supra), learned Magistrate had taken the
person in custody by rejecting the bail application. Learned counsel
also submitted while mentioning, that being sceptical, the other
petitioners chose not to appear. Thus, he prayed that order dated
21.04.2025 may be modified accordingly, considering the
development which had taken place.
4. On submission of learned counsel representing the
petitioners, this case was notified and listed in the second half.
5. This Court requests learned counsel Mr. Jitendra
Shankar Singh, to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae.
6. In the second half, learned counsel representing the
petitioner on instruction submitted that initially petitioner No.1 –
Ruplal Rana was taken in custody and was released on bail by the
learned Sessions Court. He submits that in utter disregard of the
guidelines in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the
Magistrate has passed the order taking the petitioner in custody.
7. 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 para-3, has categorized the
offences in four categories. Category-A are the cases which relates
to “after filing of charge-sheet / complaint and taking cognizance”.
Category-A is a separate category by itself and it cannot be merged
with Category-B & D. The procedure which has been prescribed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case where cognizance has been
taken after filing a complaint and after summons have been issued,
is well defined there. It is necessary to quote para-3 of the
judgment of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), reported in (2021)
10 SCC 773, which reads as hereunder:-
“3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make
them a part of the order of the Court for the benefit
of the courts below. The guidelines are as under:
“Categories/Types of Offences
(A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years
or less not falling in Categories B and D.
(B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for
life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.
(C) Offences punishable under Special Acts
containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS
(Section 37), PMLA (Section 45), UAPA [Section 43-
D(5)], Companies Act [Section 212(6)], etc.
(D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.
Requisite Conditions
(1) Not arrested during investigation.
(2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation
including appearing before investigating officer
whenever called.
(No need to forward such an accused along with the
charge-sheet Siddharth v. State of
U.P. [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676] )
Category A
After filing of charge-sheet/complaint taking of
cognizance
(a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including
permitting appearance through lawyer.
(b) If such an accused does not appear despite
service of summons, then bailable warrant for
physical appearance may be issued.
(c) NBW on failure to appear despite issuance of
bailable warrant.
(d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a
bailable warrant/summons without insisting physical
appearance of the accused, if such an application 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.
(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.
Category B/D
On appearance of the accused in court pursuant to
process issued bail application to be decided on
merits.
Category C
Same as Categories B and D with the additional
condition of compliance of the provisions of bail under
NDPS (Section 37), Section 45 of the PMLA, Section
212(6) of the Companies Act, Section 43-D(5) of the
UAPA, Pocso, etc.”
8. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that in cases on
complaint where cognizance has been taken and summons are
issued, even the Court may permit appearance through Lawyer.
Further the 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. In the entire judgment, there is nothing to suggest that in a complaint case, after cognizance, any weightage is to be given to the gravity of offence under the Sections of Indian Penal Code.
9. Thus, prima facie I am of the opinion that the Magistrate
being totally unaware of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
has dealt with this matter. These are the cases where personal
liberty of the citizen is at stake. The Magistrate should very well be
sensitized in these type of issues, specially about the judgments
which relate and deal with personal liberty. It is misfortune that in
spite of steps taken by Jharkhand Judicial Academy, results have
not been achieved. Despite sensitization programmes, these types
of orders are being passed, without application of mind and without
applying the law by the Magistrates. This is unfortunate and
unwarranted.
10. Be it noted that in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State
of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, at para-11.8, it
has been mentioned that authorizing detention without recording
reasons by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for
departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
11. In this case, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the
Magistrate could not have taken in custody on appearance.
12. Since the petitioner is praying for modification of order
dated 21.04.2025 passed in this case, the petitioner is at liberty to
file an application for modification of this order, which will be taken
up and further order will be passed in this case.
13. List this case in the next week, under the heading
“Orders”, along with the modification application which will be filed
by the petitioners.
14. Name of Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh (Amicus Curiae),
shall henceforth be reflected in the cause list.
15. Let a copy of this order be immediately faxed to the
concerned Judicial Magistrate and the Principal District Judge,
Hazaribagh and also to the Director, Judicial Academy to impart
extensive training online to this particular Judicial Magistrate at
least for two days after Court hours, and sensitize the Magistrate
about the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, 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.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)