2025:JHHC:14999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3201 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Bhakat, son of Pradip Kumar Bhakat, resident of Kanchantalla, Dhuliyan, P.O and P.S. Samsherganj, District- Murshidabad, West Bengal. ...... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Megha Kumari, wife of Ajay Kumar Bhakat, daughter of Ashwini Kumar Bhagat, resident of Mahadevran Mirzachouki, P.O and P.S. Mirzachouki, District- Sahibganj. … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, A.P.P. …..... 02/10.06.2025: 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) 307, 323, 341, 379, 384, 498(A) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Complaint Case No. 430 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Sahibganj. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and had gone through the documents, annexed along with this application. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the State availed and opposed. Admittedly, this case arises out of a complaint. After cognizance has been taken in the said complaint petition, summons were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, without appearing before the Court concerned in response to the summon, filed anticipatory bail application, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge. In a complaint case, where cognizance has been taken and summons have been issued, there is no apprehension of arrest. Since there is no apprehension of arrest, the anticipatory bail application, according to me, is not maintainable. The petitioner should only appear in reply to the summon and file a surrender-cum-bail application or file necessary bail bonds only, which needs to be accepted by the Trial Court. In a complaint case, after cognizance, there is no necessity to keep a person in custody. The only assurance which the Court has to take is that the accused will appear before Court and will cooperate with the trial and will not influence the witnesses. There is no question of custodial interrogation in these type of cases, where cognizance has already been taken. Considering what has been held above, this application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court, which has issued summons and on his appearance, he will file necessary bonds. Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)