2025:JHHC:16409 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3332 of 2025 ------ 1. Baldev Yadav, aged about 51 years, Son of Late Kunj Bihari Yadav @ Late Kund Bihari Yadav Resident of Village Basmata, Taratand, P.O. + P.S.-Taratand, District-Giridih, (Jharkhand) 2. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 25 years, Son of Chintamni @ Chintaman Yadav, Resident of Chatro, P.O.+ P.S. Giridih Muffasil, District Giridih, (Jharkhand) …. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party With A.B.A. NO. 3355 of 2025 Mahendra Yadav, Aged about 51 years, Son of Koleshwar Yadav, Resident of Village-Kurhobindo, P.O. & P.S. Jamuna, District Giridih …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3333 of 2025 Ajit Marandi, aged about 18 years, Son of Sangram Marandi, Resident of Village-Charakpathla, Taratand, Pamdri, P.O. & P.S. Taratand, District Giridih …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party ------ CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. ----- 04/ 20.06.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Tundi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2024, pending in the 2025:JHHC:16409 2 Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Dhanbad. 3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Six mobile phones and Rs. 40,000/- cash were stolen from the informants shop. The FIR is against the unknown persons. It was found that these stolen mobile phone were used by these petitioners. The police issued notice under Section 35 (3) of the B.N.S.S., and also reached the house of the petitioners and informed their family members about the same. These petitioners, thereafter, went to the police station and handed over the mobile phone. 5. Issuance of notice under Section 35 (3) of the B.N.S.S. and the fact that the petitioner admittedly had gone to the police station and handed over the mobile phone, they were not arrested and they stated that they had purchased the mobile phone from Ajit Yadav, clearly suggests that the police did not feel it necessary to arrest the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid situation, I am of the opinion that there is no apprehension of the petitioner being arrested. Thus, the petitioner should co-operate with the investigation and should take appropriate steps in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of “Satender Kumar Antil V/s Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.” reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 & (2022) 10 SCC 51. 7. It is made clear that during pendency of investigation, if the petitioner does not cooperate with the investigation, the police may file an appropriate application before the concerned 2025:JHHC:16409 3 Court. 8. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Rashmi/Cp-3