Jharkhand High Court
Sumit Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 July, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:18958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3660 of 2025
------
Sumit Kumar Mishra, S/o Suresh Kumar Mishra.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sneha Poddar, D/o Dinesh Poddar.
... ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
——
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P.
—–
04/ 11.07.2025
Heard the parties.
2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been
preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection
with Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.05 of 2024, for offences under
Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 417, 420, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case is presently
pending before the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. It is alleged by the prosecutrix in her written report that
she met with the petitioner and both of them started living for some
days. Thereafter they got married in a temple at Dhanbad. The
prosecutrix alleged that after one month of the marriage, the
petitioner started torturing her for demand of dowry. She alleged
that on many occasions, the parents of the prosecutrix has given
huge amount to the petitioner but the petitioner was not satisfied
with the same and demanded more dowry.
4. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are punishable for
a period of seven years or less.
5. In para-5 of this Anticipatory Bail Application, which is
on oath, it has been stated that the petitioner is cooperating with
the investigation as he has received Notice under Section 41A
Cr.P.C. on 05.09.2024. It has been further stated in said para that
the petitioner immediately went personally before Jaishree Minz,
S.I.-cum-I.O., Mahila Thana, Dhanbad, to get his statement
1
2025:JHHC:18958
recorded.
6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits
that in presence of the said Investigating Officer, the petitioner gave
his written reply which was also duly received by the Investigating
Officer on 25.09.2024. Learned counsel thereafter adds that it is
but natural that the petitioner has not been arrested as he is
cooperating in the investigation.
7. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail.
8. Considering the admission of the petitioner that he has
not been arrested in spite of the fact that he had gone and appeared
before the Investigating Officer, which suggests that he is
cooperating in the investigation, I am of the opinion that there is no
apprehension of the petitioner being arrested by the Police. Thus,
the petitioner should continue cooperating with the investigation by
appearing before the Investigating Officer once in every fifteen days
and in the meantime he should appear before the concerned Court
who shall pass an appropriate order in terms with the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 51 as well as Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2024) 9 SCC
198 and also taking into consideration the observation given in the
said judgment.
9. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Anticipatory
Bail Application stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Prashant. Cp-3
2