2025:JHHC:13706 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6227 of 2024 Md. Arif Raza @ Arif Raja, son of Md. Idrish Ansari, resident of village Ichatu, P.O Ichatu, P.S. Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand ...... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Taibun Praveen, daughter of Suleman Ansari, wife of Md. Arif Raza @ Arif Raja, resident of village Ichatu, P.O. Ramgarh, P.S. Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh, at present village Dadidih, P.O Dadidih, P.S. Giridih Muffasil, District- Giridih, Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : M/s A.N. Deo and Karishma Kumari, Advocates. For the State : A.P.P. …..... 5/07.05.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, as the petitioner has been allegedly implicated in a criminal case registered under Section(s) 323, 341, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 1347 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Judicial SDJM, Giridih. 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.)