2025:JHHC:13566 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6047 of 2024 Kishore Rana @ Kishore Vishwakarma, aged about 25 years, s/o Ruplal Rana, r/o village Simradhab, PO +PS Birni, Dist. Giridih …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kajal Devi w/o Kishore Rana d/o Etwari Mistri, r/o presently at Bhoktadih, PO Dhanwar, PS Dhanwar (GhorthambhaOP) Dist. Giridih …. Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, APP For the O.P No.2 : Mr. S.K. Murthy, Advocate Mr. Shree Newas Rai, Advocate ----- 08/06.05.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioner has been allegedly implicated in connection with Complaint Case No. 1945 of 2023 for the offences punishable under section 323,341498A, 379, 504, 506, 313 of the IPC and Section 3 /4 of DP Act, pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. This case arose from a complaint, where cognizance has already been taken. On query as to why the informant-complainant wants to keep the petitioner in custody, counsel for the informant submits that since the matter was sent for mediation center on the request of the petitioner but the petitioner never appeared before Mediator, anticipatory bail of the petitioner has to be rejected. He further submits Section 313 of the IPC is also a non-bailable offence. The submission of the learned counsel for the informant-complainant that since the mediation became a nonstarter, it is necessary to keep the petitioner in custody, is nothing but satisfaction of the ego of the informant. The same which cannot be ground to dismiss the anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 2025:JHHC:13566 The fact remains that cognizance has already been taken in a complaint case. If at all the petitioner has committed offence, the same has to be tried and thereafter an appropriate order will be passed. In complaint case, keeping the petitioner in custody during trial amounts to keeping a person in pretrial custody which should be avoided. Admitted fact is that the case arises out of a complaint. Cognizance has been taken, hence there is no necessity of taking the petitioner in custody. Further there is no question of custodial interrogation also. Since there is no occasion to take the petitioner in custody, he should appear before the court below and file a bond and on his appearance the court will consider his case as per law. This application is thus disposed of. anjali/cp3 (ANANDA SEN, J. )