2025:JHHC:15247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6507 of 2024 1. Mumtaj Ansari @ Mumtaj Miyan son of Hakim Miyan 2. Jahina Khatoon @ Jahina Bibi, wife of Mumtaj Miyan @ Mumtaj Ansari Both are resident of village- Nawatanr, P.O and P.s. Taratanr, District- Giridih. ...... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Fatima Praveen @ Fatma Khatoon, daughter of Hadish Ansari, resident of village Parwatpur, P.O and P.s. Ahilyapur, District- Giridih. … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. …..... 04/12.06.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, as the petitioners have been allegedly implicated in a criminal case registered under Section(s) 498A/323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 1565 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners to appear before the Court concerned and their case will be considered strictly in compliance with the guidelines laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 as well as the observation made in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in (2024) 9 SCC 198. Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)