2025:JHHC:13712 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6230 of 2024 Subodh Kumar @ Subodh, son of Ramlakhan Singh, resident of village Umairabad, P.O and P.S Arwal, District Arwal, Bihar. ...... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Makeshwar Prasad Singh, son of Dwarika Prasad, resident of House No. 539 of 2002, Ward No. 34, Bawan Bigha, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand. … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. For the Informant: : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate. …..... 05/07.05.2025: 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) 307, 34, 120B, 323, 384, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 625 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Deoghar. 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 as well as informant to oppose the bail, which they availed and opposed vehemently. 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 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 interrogation in these type of cases. Thus there cannot be any custodial interrogation in a complaint case, where cognizance has already been taken. Considering what has been held above, this application is disposed 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.)