2025:JHHC:18092 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3579 of 2025 ------ 1. Vivekanand Jha, aged about 47 years, son of Arun Kumar Jhar. 2. Suman Sourabh, aged about 47 years, son of Ram Naresh. 3. Neeraj Jha, aged about 45 years, son of Chiranjeev Jha. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Kumar Pranjal, son of Balram Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No. G+OA, Gupteshwar Complex, Bekarbandh, P.O. & P.S. Bekarbandh, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate ----- 04/ 07.07.2025 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 petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with C.P. Case No.16095 of 2023, for offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned J.M. Dhanbad. 3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel representing the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the case arises out of complaint where there is no scope of investigation. Cognizance has already been taken. He submits that the petitioners will also appear before the Court concerned during the trial. He also submits that his client ensures that they will not linger the trial. He refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 as 2025:JHHC:18092 well as the observation made in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773. 5. Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel representing the informant submits that the informant has been cheated but admits that this case arises out of a complaint and is covered by Clause A of the categorization of the judgment of Hon’ble “Satender.Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another” reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773”. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I direct the petitioners to appear before the Court concerned. Once the petitioners appear, the Court will pass an appropriate order in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). 7. In view of the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Sandeep. Cp-3