[2025:JHHC:25302] 1 Cr. M.P. No.3007 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3007 of 2023 ------ 1. Bipin Prakash Ekka @ Vipin Prakash Ekka, Aged about 45 years son of Late Subodh Ekka, Resident of Village- Gundu Sarna Toli, P.O.- Hulhundu, P.S.- Dhurwa, Hatia, District- Ranchi. 2. Nilesh Rakshit Ekka, Aged about 42 years, Son of Late Bipta Ekka, at present Resident of House No. 807, Hurhuru Road, P.O. & P.S. & District- Hazaribagh. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dr. Subodh Kumar, Son of Late Arjun Prasad Singh, Resident of 3/55, Street No.3, Nirmala Sishu Sadan, New Area, Gandhi Nagar, P.O.- Hinoo, P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to delete the condition imposed while allowing the anticipatory bail application to the petitioners by which the condition that the petitioners will furnish an undertaking under Section 437(3) (b) & (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as was imposed upon the petitioners while granting them the anticipatory bail; as the said condition is unreasonable condition. [2025:JHHC:25302] 2 Cr. M.P. No.3007 of 2023 3. The brief fact of the case is that Dhurwa (T) P.S. Case No.164 of 2023, has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon prayer being made by the accused persons of the said case, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi granted them anticipatory bail vide order dated 08.08.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.1837 of 2023 inter alia with the condition that they will furnish an undertaking under Section 437(3)(b) & (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Munish Bhasin & Others vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Another reported in 2009 0 Supreme (SC) 327 para-7 of which reads as under:- “7. From the perusal of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 438, it is evident that when the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1) to release an accused alleged to have committed non-bailable offence, the Court may include such conditions in such direction in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including (i) a condition that a person shall make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required, (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and (iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under subsection (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. Sub-section (3) of Section 437, inter alia, provides that when a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall impose the following conditions- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, [2025:JHHC:25302] 3 Cr. M.P. No.3007 of 2023 (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. The Court may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has quoted Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that the same provides that when a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more of or an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment or conspiracy or attempt to commit any such offence, is released on bail under Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court shall impose the conditions as envisaged under Section 437(3)(a)(b) & (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the court may also impose in interest of justice such other conditions as it considers necessary. It is next submitted that since the said condition is unreasonable, hence, the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that even in case of regular bail if the offence involves for the offence inter alia under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, the court shall impose the condition of Section 437(3)(b) & (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a condition which is to be imposed in case of grant of regular bail, as imposed by a judge in exercise of the power [2025:JHHC:25302] 4 Cr. M.P. No.3007 of 2023 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; in case of anticipatory bail, such a condition, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as unreasonable. Besides, in para-7 of the very judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Munish Bhasin & Others vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in no uncertain manner, has also mentioned that in case of grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be imposed by the court granting anticipatory bail. It is next submitted that the petitioners have filed the frivolous petition only to evade their arrest and abscond with a flimsy ground and it is apparent that even though the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail; without any plausible reason, they have succeeded in absconding for a period of more than two years and are deliberately delaying the trial of the case; as they are very much aware that in view of the serious nature of allegation against them and the gravity of the offence; their conviction in the case is imminent. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that, as has rightly been submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is in the Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that, in case of grant of regular bail for such offence, the courts shall impose the conditions provided for in Section 437(a)(b) & (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So, this Court has no hesitation in holding that as in case of grant of regular [2025:JHHC:25302] 5 Cr. M.P. No.3007 of 2023 bail in any offence involving Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code, a condition is to be imposed under the mandate of Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; so by no stretch of imagination when such a condition is imposed while granting anticipatory bail, can be said to be an unreasonable condition. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Criminal Miscellaneous petition is a frivolous petition filed by the petitioners with ulterior motive to delay the disposal of the trial. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. 8. The Trial Court is directed to take all coercive steps against the petitioners for their apprehension for facing the trial. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of August, 2025 AFR/ Saroj