2025:JHHC:15337 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3181 of 2025 Rahul Kumar Sao @ Rahul Kumar Saw, son of late Sanjay Sao, resident of village Niche Kulhi, Near Bajrangbali Mandir, P.O and P.S. Jharia, District- Dhanbad. ....... Petitioner(s). -Versus- The State of Jharkhand …..Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. …..... 03/12.06.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, as the petitioner has been allegedly implicated in a criminal case registered under Section(s) 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and had gone through the documents, annexed along with this application. 3. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the State availed and opposed. 4. It is not necessary to go into the factual merits of this case in view of order, I intend to pass. 5. As per FIR, the offence punishable is for the period of seven years or less. Further, during course of arguments, learned Spl. P.P after taking proper instruction from the I.O of this case has stated that no notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS has been served upon the petitioner. Thus, there is no compliance of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 in para 100.3 has held that the Court will have to satisfy themselves of the compliance of notice under Section 41 and 41A Cr.P.C [now Section 35(3) BNSS]. It has also been held in the said paragraph that any non-compliance of the said notice would entitle to accused for grant of bail. 7. From the arguments of the parties, I find that it is clear that in a case where provision of Section 35(3) of BNSS (previously Section 41(A) Cr.P.C) has not been complied with, thus the accused is entitled for bail in terms of judgment passed 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 (2024) 9 SCC 198. 8. Thus, I direct the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned and file his bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with a condition that he will appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation, failing which, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application before the Court concerned for cancellation of his bail. 9. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)