2025:JHHC:19291 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3597 of 2025 ------ Petitioner A … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. ----- 05/ 15.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 498A, 376D, 313, 341, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Mahila (Bundu) PS Case No. 9 of 2024. 3. Though there is an allegation in the FIR which constitute offence under section 313 of Indian Penal Code but it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during supervision only offence under sections 498A, 341, 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code were made out. He submits that thereafter based on the aforesaid supervision notice under section 41A of Cr.PC [section 35(3) of BNSS] has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner admits that he has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has cooperated with the investigation and still cooperating. He submits that on appearance before the Investigating Officer neither the Investigating Officer nor the Police Officials have arrested the petitioner. He submits that other co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 2025:JHHC:19291 2 5. The very submission of the petitioner gives a clear impression that the petitioner does not have any apprehension of being arrested. A notice under section 41A of Cr.PC was issued when the Police Officials/Investigating Officials felt it proper not to arrest the petitioner. The anticipatory bail application is filed only when there is apprehension of arrest. In this case notice under section 41A of Cr.PC has been issued which suggest that there is no necessity of the petitioner to be arrested. 6. Thus, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no apprehension of being arrested. In absence of apprehension of being arrested and since the petitioner has complied with the notice under section 41A of Cr.PC, he should appear before the court concerned who will consider the case of the petitioner considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr.” reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and pass an appropriate order. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3