2025:JHHC:19860 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3867 of 2025 ------ Mihir Chandra Saha, S/o Late Narayan Chandra Saha, aged about 56 years, R/o Vill. Kunuri, P.O. Kunuri, P.S. Saithia, District- Birbhum, State-West Bengal. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Piyush Kr. Roy, Advocate Mr. Ayush, Advocate Mr. Adiya Mishra, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, APP ----- 05/ 21.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 & 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.60/2024, for offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is punishable for a period of seven years or less. The case is presently pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he and one Sarveshwar Hansda are friends-cum-business partner of informant. He submits that due to business relationship, informant invested huge amount. Thereafter, when the informant demanded his money back, the accused persons refused to return the money and threatened and misbehaved with the informant. 4. During the course of arguments, Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP submits that the notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has appeared before the I.O. and complied with 2025:JHHC:19860 the same. 5. Once a notice under Section 35(3) has been issued, it is presumed that the I.O. does not have any intention to arrest the petitioner. Further, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and has complied with the notice and he was not arrested. This fact strengthens the aforesaid presumption that there is no apprehension of the petitioner being arrested. That being so, filing of this anticipatory bail application is misconceived. 6. The petitioner should cooperate with the investigation and will appear before the I.O. as and when required and thereafter take appropriate action in terms of the judgment of 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 the observation made in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773”. 7. In view of the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Sandeep. Cp-3