Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Barnwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 June, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:16614
2025:JHHC:16615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.7344 of 2024
------
1.Sanjay Barnwal, son of late Vanshi Modi, resident of village
Gandhi School Road, Prabhat Colony, Ward No. 25, PO and PS
Telaiya, District Koderma
2.Sita Devi @ Seeta Devi, wife of late Vijay Rana
3.Vikash Kumar Rana, son of Vijay Rana
4.Sonu Kumar, son of Vijay Rana
5.Akbar Miyan, son of late Ashraf Miyan
Petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are resident of village Bhadodih, PO and
PS Telaiya, District Koderma ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.Rajendra Rana, son of Sona Rana, R/o village Moriyawam,
Ward no. 28, PO and PS Telaiya, District Koderma
... ... Opposite Party(s)
With
A.B.A. No.7488 of 2024
------
Vijay Rana, son of late Nunu Rana, resident of village
Kariyabar, PO and PS Koderma, District Koderma
... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.Rajendra Rana, son of Sona Rana, R/o village Moriyawam,
Ward no. 28, PO and PS Telaiya, District Koderma
... ... Opposite Party(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
——
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate.
Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP
—–
04/ 23.06.2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2. These anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, have
been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for
offences registered under Sections 323, 341, 420, 406, 467,
468, 471, 120B, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in
1
2025:JHHC:16614
2025:JHHC:16615
connection with Complaint Case No. 1930 of 2023.
3. Inspite of notice the informant has not appeared.
4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail.
5. Since the case arises of compliant there is no question of
custodial investigation. Further cognizance has already been
taken and summons have been issued.
6. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of “Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar“
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and “Satender Kumar Antil
vs. CBI and Anr.” reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, I direct the
petitioners to appear before the trial Court since there is no
question of arrest in these cases and take appropriate steps.
7. Accordingly, these Anticipatory Bail Applications stand
disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Tanuj/Cp-3
2